Copy  I 


*vu^ 


i 
s 


Copyrit'lit,  I'.tHI.  l.y  Kolit.  O.  Law. 


DWIGHT   L.  MOODY 


on  the  |3olu  Scrii^turcs  of  t^c  (L)lir  anb 
^flo  Ctstaimnts 

UNDER    THE    EDITORSHIP    OF 

The  Rev.  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Theological  Eticyclopedia  and  Symbolics 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  Neiv  York 


The  Rev,  SAMUEL  ROLLES  DRIVER,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,   Oxford 

The  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUMMER,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Late  Master  of  University  College,  Durham 


The  International 

Critical  Commentary 

On  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments 


EDITORS'    PREFACE 


THERE  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular 
or  homiletical  character.  The  Cajnbridge  Bible  for 
Schools,  the  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students, 
The  Speaker' s  Commentary,  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaflf), 
77;-?  Expositor's  Bible,  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into  the 
field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such  series  of 
Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
A.  T.  ;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum 
N.  T. ;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kommentar ;  Keil  and 
Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Commentar  uber  das  A.  T ;  Lange's 
Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk  ;  Nowack's  Handkommentar 
ztim  A.  T.  ;  Holtzmann's  Handkommentar  zum  N.  T.  Several 
of  these  have  been  translated,  edited,  and  in  some  cases  enlarged 
and  adapted,  for  the  English-speaking  public  ;  others  are  in 
process  of  translation.  But  no  corresponding  series  by  British 
or  American  divines  has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has 
been  prepared  by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  EUicott, 
Kalisch,  Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others;  and  the 
time  has  come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enter- 
prise, when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars  in  the  production  of  a  critical,  comprehensive 
Commentary  that  wll  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholarship, 
and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  ])ropose  to  publish  such  a  series 
of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  under  the 
editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  I). Lilt.,  in  America,  and 
of  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  ALFRED  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament,  in 
Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter- confessional, 
and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias.  They 
will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of  the  original  texts 
of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of  interpretation.  They 
are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and  clergymen,  and  will  be 
written  in  a  compact  style.  Each  book  will  be  preceded  by  an 
Introduction,  stating  the  results  of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discuss- 
ing impartially  the  questions  still  remaining  open.  The  details 
of  criticism  will  appear  in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the 
Commentary.  Each  section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced 
with  a  paraphrase,  or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details 
of  textual  and  philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept 
distinct  from  matter  of  a  more  general  character  ;  and  in  the 
Old  Testament  the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted  with 
Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books  will  be 
dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions,  with  critical 
notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of  the  subject.  Historical 
and  Archaeological  questions,  as  well  as  questions  of  Biblical 
Theology,  are  included  in  the  plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but 
not  Practical  or  Homiletical  Exegesis.  The  Volumes  will  con- 
stitute a  uniform  series. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ARRANGEMENT   OF   VOLUMES   AND   AUTHORS 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

GENESIS.  The  Rev.  John  Skinner,  D.D.,  Principal  and  Professor  of 
Old  Testament  Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  Cambridge,  England.  [Now  Ready. 

CXODUS.  The  Rev.  A.  R.  S.  Kennedy,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
University  of  I'^dinburgh. 

LEVITICUS.    J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford. 

NUMBERS.    The  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  Gray,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

MansfieWl  College,  Oxford.  [A^otv  Ready. 

DEUTERONOMY.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  \_N(roD  Ready. 

JOSHUA.  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Principal  of  the 
University  of  Aberdeen. 

JUDGES.  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  of  Theol- 
ogy, Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

SAMUEL.  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Literature  and  History  of  Religion,  Meadville,  Pa.  [Now  Ready. 

KINGS.  The  Rev,  Francis  Brown,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  LL.D.,  President 
and  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages,  Union  Theological 
Seminar)',  New  York  City. 

CHRONICLES.  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,  D.D.,  Professor  of 
Hebrew,   Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  [Now  Ready. 

EZRA  AND  NEHEMIAH.  The  Rev.  L.  W.  Batten,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor  of  Old  Testament  Literature,  General  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City. 

PSALMS.  The  Rev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Gradua'e  Iro- 
fessor  of  Theological  Encyclopsedia  and  Symbolics,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,   New  York.  [2  vols.     Now  Ready 

PROVERBS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Toy,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Prof essor  of  Hebrew, 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  [Now  Ready. 

JOB.  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt..  Regius  Professor  of  He- 
brew,  Oxford. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ISAIAH.  Chaps.  I-XXVII.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,  Pro- 
fessor of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

ISAIAH.  Chaps.  XXMII-XXXIX.  The  Rev.  G.  Buchanan  Gray,  D.U. 
Chaps.  LX-LXVT.  The  Rev.  A.  S.  Peake,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Theo- 
logical Faculty  of  the  Victoria  University  and  Professor  of  Biblical  Exegesis 
in  the  University  of  Manchester,  JCngiand. 

JEREMIAH.  The  Rev.  A.  F.  Kirkpatrick,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Ely,  sometime 
Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Cambridge,  England. 

EZEKIEL.  The  Rev.  G.  A.  Cooke,  M.A.,  Oriel  Professor  of  the  Interpre- 
tation of  Holy  Scripture,  University  of  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F. 
BuRNEY,  D.Litt.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  John's  College, 
Oxford. 

DANIEL.  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime  Professor 
of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St.  Michael's 
Church,  New  York  City. 

AMOS  AND  HOSEA.  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL.D.,  sometime  President 
of  the  University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  [Ah'W  Ready. 

MICAH,  ZEPHANIAH,  NAHUM.   HABAKKUK,   OBADIAH,  AND   JOEL. 

Prof.  John  P.  Smith,  University  of  Chicago;  W.  Hayes  Ward,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Editor  of  T/ie  Independent,  New  York;  Prof.  Julius  A.  Bewer,  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  iNorw  Ready. 

ZECHARIAH  TO  JONAH.  Prof.  H.  G.  MiTCHELL,  D.D.,  Prof.  John  P. 
Smith  and  Prof.  J.  .\.  Bewer.  [Nou>  Ready. 

ESTHER.  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Paton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Hart- 
ford Theological  Seminary.  [IVow  Ready. 

ECCLESIASTES.  Prof.  George  A.  Barton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Bibli- 
cal Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa.  [.Vcnr  Ready. 

RUTH,  SONG  OF  SONGS  AND  LAMENTATIONS.  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Graduate  Professor  of  Theological  Encyclopaedia 
ind  Symbolics,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 

ST.  MATTHEW.    The  Rev.  Willoughbv  C.  Ali.en,  M.A.,   Fellow  and 
Lecturer  in  Theology  and  Hebrew,  Exeter  College,  Oxford.       \Now  Ready. 

ST    MARK.     Rev.  E.  P.  Gould.  D.D..  sometime  Professor  of  New  Testa- 
ment  Literature,    P.  E.  Divinity  School,   Philadelphia.  \_Nmu  Ready. 

ST.  LUKE.    The    Rev.    Alfred    Plummer,    D.D.,    sometime   Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  l.^^  Ready. 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 


ST.  JOHN.     The  Right  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Bishop  of 

Ossory,  Ireland. 

HARMONY  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D., 
LL  D  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  Wil- 
LOUGHBY  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity  and  Hebrew, 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

ACTS.  The  Rev.  C.  H.  Turner,  D.D.,  Fellow  of  Magdalen  College, 
Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  H.  N.  Bate,  M.A.,  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  London. 

ROMANS.  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady  Margaret 
Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev. 
A.  C.  Headlam,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 

[Now  Ready. 

I.  CORINTHIANS.  The  Right  Rev.  Arch  Robertson,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  late  Master  of 
University  College,  Durham.  U^ow  Ready. 

II.  CORINTHIANS.  The  Rev.  Dawson  Walker,  D.D.,  Theological  Tutor 
in  the  University  of  I3urham. 

GALATIANS.  The  Rev.  Ernt:st  D.  Burton,  D.D.,  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Literature,  University  of  Chicago. 

EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS.  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Abbott,  B.D., 
D.Litt.,  sometime  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  Trinity  College,  DubUn, 
now  Librarian  of  the  same.  [Now  Ready. 

PHILIPPIANS  AND  PHILEMON.  The  Rev.  Marvin  R  Vincent, 
D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New 
York  City.  [Now  Ready. 

THESSALONIANS.    The    Rev.   James   E.    Frame,   M.A.,    Professor  of 

Bibhcal  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

[/«  Press. 
THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  The  Rev.  Walter  Lock,  D.D.,  Warden 
of  Keble  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

HEBREWS.  The  Rev.  James  Moffatt,  D.D.,  Minister  United  Free 
Church,  Broughty  Ferry,  Scotland. 

ST.  JAMES.  The  Rev.  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of  New 
Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

PETER  AND  JUDE.  The  Rev.  CHARLES  BiGG,  D.D.,  sometime  Regius 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

[AVw  Ready. 

THE  EPISTLES  OF  ST.  JOHN.  The  Rev.  E.  A.  BROOKE,  B.D.,  Fellow 
and  Divinity  Lecturer  in  King's  College,  Cambridge.  [In  Press. 

REVELATION.  The  Rev.  ROBERT  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D.,  sometime 
Professor  of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin. 


HAGGAI,  ZECHARIAH,  MALACHI 
AND  JONAH 


The  International  Critical  Commentaryx^^^^ 

(      OCT    7  1! 

A   CRITICAL  AND       M^/qal  s^ 

EXEGETICAL   COMMENTARY 


ON 

HAGGAI,  ZECHARIAH 
MALACHI  AND  JONAH 


BY 

HINCKLEY  G.  MITCHELL,  D.D. 

JOHN  MERLIN  POWIS  SMITH,  Ph.D. 

JULIUS  A.  BEWER,  Ph.D. 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1912 


COPYRTOHT,  I912,  BY 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 
Published  June,  igta 


PREFACE 

THIS  volume  completes  the  series  of  commentaries  on 
the  Minor  Prophets  originally  undertaken  by  the  late 
William  R.  Harper.  The  order  of  arrangement  differs 
from  the  traditional  one  only  in  the  case  of  Jonah,  which  is 
placed  at  the  end  of  the  series,  not  only  because  it  was  composed 
at  a  much  later  date  than  the  traditional  order  suggests,  but 
also  because  it  is  of  a  different  character  from  the  other  prophets. 
This  volume,  like  the  previous  one,  is  composed  of  three  little 
volumes  bound  in  one,  because  it  seemed  best  on  the  whole  to 
publish  the  work  of  the  three  authors  under  separate  sub-titles 
in  this  way. 


CONTENTS 


PREFACE       .     . 
ABBREVIATIONS 


I.  A  COMMENTARY  ON  HAGGAI  AND  ZECH- 

ARIAH I 

INTRODUCTION:    THE  HISTORIC  BACKGROUND   OF 

THE  PROPHECIES  OF  HAGGAI  AND  ZECHARIAH  3-24 

§  I.    Cyrus 3-14 

§  2.    Cambyses 14-17 

§  3.    Darius  I,  Hystaspes 17-24 

HAGGAI  AND  HIS   PROPHECIES 25-38 

§  I.    Personal  History  of  the  Prophet 25-27 

§  2.    The  Book  of  Haggai 27-30 

§  3.    The  Text  of  Haggai 30-35 

§  4.    The  Thoughts  and  Style  of  Haggai 36-39 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  HAGGAI .     .  40-79 

§  I.    The  Movement  to  Rebuild  the  Sanctuary    .     .  40-57 

§  2.    The  Resources  of  the  Builders 58-65 

§  3.    The  New  Era  of  the  Restored  Temple     .     .    .  66-76 

§  4.    The  Future  of  the  Leader  Zerubbabel    .    .    .  76-79 

ZECHARIAH  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES 81-106 

§  I.    The  Personal  History  of  the  Prophet      .     .    .  81-84 

§  2.    The  Structure  of  Chapters  i-8 84 

§  3.    The  Text  of  Chapters  1-8 84-97 

§  4.    The  Style  of  Zechariah 98-102 

§  5.    The  Teaching  of  Zechariah 102-106 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PROPHECIES  OF  ZECHARIAH  107-217 

1.  The  Introduction 108-115 

2.  A  Series  of  Visions  with  Their  Interpretation  .  1 15-194 

a.  The  Return  from  Captivity 1 15-147 

(i)  The  Hollow  of  the  Myrtles  .     .    .  1 15-130 

(2)  The  Horns  and  Their  Destroyers  .  130-136 

(3)  The  Man  with  the  Measuring  Line  .  136-140 

(4)  An  Appeal  to  the  Exiles    ....  140-147 

vii 


VIU  CONTENTS 

PACE 

b.  The  Anointed  of  Yaitweii 147-168 

(i)  The  Accused  High  Priest    ....  147-161 

(2)  The  Symbolic  Candelabru.u      .     .    .  1 61-168 

c.  The  Seat  of  Wickedness 168-182 

(i)  The  Flying  Roll 168-171 

(2)  The  Woman  in  the  Ephah   .     .     .     .  1 71-177 

(3)  The  Four  Chariots 177-182 

d.  The  Prince  of  Judah 183-194 

(i)  A  Symbolic  Crown 183-190 

(2)  Zerubbabel  and  the  Temple    .     .     .  190-194 

3.    A  New  Era 194-217 

a.  An  Inquiry  from  Bethel 194-198 

b.  A  Series  of  Oracles 198-217 

(i)  The  Teaching  of  the  Past  ....  199-205 

(2)  The  Promise  of  the  Future    .     .     .  206-209 

(3)  The  Past  and  Future  in  Contrast  209-215 

(4)  The  Reign  of  Joy  and  Gladness   .     .  215-217 

THE  DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  SECOND  PART 

OF  ZECHARIAH 218-259 

§  I.    The  Structure  of  Chapters  9-14 218-220 

§  2.    The  Text  of  Chapters  9-14 220-231 

§  3.    The  Authorship  of  Chapters  9-14 232-259 

COMMENTARY  ON   CHAPTERS  9-14 260-357 

1.  The  Revival  of  the  Hebrew  Nation 260-320 

a.  The  New  Kingdom 260-277 

b.  A  Promise  of  Freedom  and  Prosperity      .  277-285 

c.  The  Plan  of  Restoration 286-302 

d.  The  Two  Shepherds 302-320 

2.  The  Future  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem 320-357 

a.  The  Jews  in  Their  Internal  Relations    .  320-340 

b.  The  Jews  and  the  Nations 34I-3S7 

INDEX 359-362 

II.    A  COMMENTARY  ON  MALACHI     ....  1-88 

INTRODUCTION  TO  MALACHI 3-17 

§  1.    The  Book  of  Malachi 3-5 

1.  Its  Contents 3 

2.  Its  Unity 3 

3.  Its  Style 4-5 

§  2.    The  Times 5-9 

§  3.    The  Prophet 9-11 

§  4.    The  Message  of  Malachi 11-15 

§  5.    Literature  on  the  Book  of  Malachi     ....  15-17 


CONTENTS  IX 

PAGE 

COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BOOK  OF  MALACHI     .     .    .  18-85 

§  I.    The  Superscription 18-19 

§  2.    Proof  of  Yahweh's  Lov'E 19-24 

§  3.    Yahweh  Honours  Them  That  Honour  Him    .    .  25-46 
§  4.    Yahweh's  Protest  against  Divorce  and  Remar- 
riage WITH  Idolatrous  Women 47-60 

§  5.    The  Near  Approach  of  the  Day  of  Judgment  .  60-69 

§  6.    The  Payment  of  Tithes  Wins  the  Blessing  of  God  69-75 

§  7.    The  Final  Triumph  of  the  Righteous   ....  76-85 

INDEX 87-88 

III.    A  COMMENTARY  ON  JONAH 1-65 

INTRODUCTION  TO  JONAH 3-27 

The  Character  of  the  Story  of  Jonah     .    .    .  3-5 

Origin  and  Purpose  of  the  Story 6-1 1 

Insertion  of  the  Book  in  the  Prophetic  Canon  ii 

The  Date  of  the  Book 11-13 

The  Unity  of  the  Book 13-21 

The  Psalm  in  Chapter  2 21-24 

The  Text  of  the  Book 25 

Modern  Literature 25-27 

COMMENTARY  ON  JONAH 28-65 

Jonah's  Disobedience  and  Flight 28-32 

The  Storm  on  the  Sea 32-34 

The  Discovery  of  Jonah  as  the  Guilty  One      .    .    .  34-38 

The  Stilling  of  the  Storm 38-40 

Jonah's  Deliverance 41-43 

A  Prayer  of  Thanksgiving 43-49 

Yahweh's  Renewed  Command  and  Jonah's  Preaching 

in  Nineveh 50-53 

The  Result  of  Jonah's  Preaching 53-56 

Jonah's  Displeasure 56-59 

Yahweh's  Rebuke  of  Jonah   .     .         59-62 

Application  of  the  Object  LessOK 62-64 

NOTE  ON  THE  USE  OF  mn>  AND  o^hSn  IN  THE  BOOK 

OF  JONAH  .    .    ,    . 64-65 


§  3 
§4 
§5 
§6 

§  7 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


I.    TEXTS  AND  VERSIONS. 


A 

=  Arabic  Version. 

Ant. 

=  Antwerp  Polyglot. 

Aq. 

=  Version  of  Aquila. 

Arm. 

=  Armenian  Version. 

ARV. 

=  American    Revised    Ver- 

sion. 

AY. 

=  Authorized  Version. 

Baer 

=  Baer  and  Delitzsch's  He- 

brew text. 

Bres. 

=  Brescia  ed.  of  the  Hebrew 

Bible  (1492-94). 

(flBo. 

=  Bohairic  ed.  of  the  Coptic 

Version. 

Comp. 

=  Complutensian  Polyglot. 

deR. 

=  de  Rossi,  Variae  Leciiones 

Veteris  Testamenti,  etc., 
Vol.  in.  (1786),  and 
Scholia  Critica  in  Ve- 
teris Testamenti  libros 
(1798). 


Eth. 

=  Ethiopic  Version. 

EV. 

=  English  Version. 

(g 

=  Received  Greek  Version. 

(S^- 

=  Sinaitic  codex. 

(SA 

=  Alexandrian  codex. 

(gAld. 

=  Aldine  edition. 

(SB 

=  Vatican  codex. 

^Comp. 

=  Complutensian  edition. 

(gcurss. 

=  Cursive  mss. 

(Sf 

=  Codex  Cryptoferratensis. 

CS"         =  Hexapla  mss. 

(gHeid.  ==  Heidelberg  Papyrus  Co- 
dex, containing  the  text 
of  Zc.  4«-Mal.  45;  edited 
and  published,  with  fac- 
similes, by  A.  Deiss- 
mann,  in  SeptuagitUa- 
Papyri  und  andere  alt- 
Christliche  Texte  der 
Heidelberger  Papyrus- 
Sammlung  (Heidelberg, 

1905)- 
(gjer.       _  Jerome's  translation  from 

the  Greek. 
d"-         =  Lucianic  mss. 
0I'3         =  Codex  Marchalianus. 
d^         =  Codex  Taurinensis. 
Gins.     =  Ginsburg,  D.;  Biblia  He- 

braica,  1894. 

li^  =  Hebrew   consonant    text; 

Hebrew  of  Polyglots. 

HP.  =  Texts  of  Holmes  and  Par- 
sons. 

J  =  Yahwistic    (Judaic)    por- 

tions of  the  Hexateuch. 

Kenn.  =  Kennicott,  Benj.;  Vetus 
Tesfatnenium  Hebrai- 
cum,  cum  variis  lectio- 
nibus  (1776-80). 

Kit.  =  Kittel,  R.;  Biblia  He- 
braica  (1905-6). 


Xll 

ABB REV 

IATIO^ 

rs 

Kt. 

_. 

Knhih,  the   Hebrew    text 

RV. 

=  Revised  Version. 

as  written. 

RVm. 

=  Revised  Version,  margin. 

H 

= 

Old  Latin  Version. 

» 

=  Syriac  Peshitto  Version. 

Lond. 

= 

London   Polyglot   (16^3- 

»'^ 

=  Ambrosian  codex. 

57). 

&" 

=  Syro-hexaplar  readings. 

Lu. 

= 

Luther's  ^■ersion. 

&L 

=  Lee's  edition. 

m 

Mas. 

= 

Massoretic  pointed  te.xt. 
Massorah. 

Sonc. 

=  Urumian  codex. 
=  Soncino  eds.  of   the  He- 
brew Bible. 

NT. 

= 

New  Testament. 

x» 

=  \'ersion  of  Symmachus. 

OT. 

= 

Old  Testament. 

s 

=  Targum. 

Par. 

= 

Paris  Polyglot  (1629-45). 

e 

=  Version  of  Theodotion. 

T'es. 

= 

Pesaro  eds.  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible. 

B 

=  \'ulgate  Version. 

\'cn. 

=  Venire  eds.  of  the  Hebrew 

Qr. 

= 

Q're,  the  Hebrew  text  as 

Bible. 

read. 

Vrss. 

=  Versions,  ancient. 

n.  BOOKS  OF  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TESTAMENTS. 


Am. 

=  Amos. 

Ezr. 

= 

Ezra. 

BS. 

=  The  Wisdom  of  Jesus 

Gal. 

= 

Galatians. 

Ben  Sira,  or  Eccle- 

Gn. 

= 

Genesis. 

siasticus. 

Hb. 



Habakkuk. 

1,2  Ch. 

=  I,  2  Chronicles. 

Heb. 

= 

Hebrews. 

Ch. 

=  Idem,  taken  together. 

Hg. 

= 

Haggai. 

Col. 

=  Colossians. 

Ho. 

= 

Hosea. 

1,  2  Cor. 

=  I,  2  Corinthians. 

CL 

=  Canticles  =  The  Song 

Is. 

= 

Isaiah. 

of  Songs. 

Jb. 

= 

Job. 

Dn. 

=  Daniel. 

Je. 

= 

Jeremiah. 

Dt. 

=  Deuteronomy. 

Jn. 

= 

John. 

Ec. 

Ecclus. 
Eph. 
I,  2  Esd. 
Est 

=  Ecclesiastes. 
=  Ecclesiasticus. 
=  Ephesians. 
=  I,  2  Esdras. 
=  Esther. 

Jo. 

Jon. 

Jos. 

Ju. 

Jud. 

= 

Joel. 

Jonah. 

Joshua. 

Judges. 

Judith. 

Ex. 

=  Exodus. 

r,  2  K. 

= 

I,  2  Kings. 

Ez. 

=  Ezekiel. 

K. 

= 

Idem,  taken  together. 

ABBREVIATIONS 


Xlll 


La. 

=  Lamentations. 

Lk. 

=  Luke. 

Lv. 

=  Leviticus. 

I,  2  Mac. 

=  I,  2  Maccabees 

Mai. 

=  Malachi. 

Mi. 

=  Micah. 

Mk. 

=  Mark. 

Mt. 

=  Matthew. 

Na. 

=  Nahum. 

Ne. 

=  Nehemiah. 

Nu. 

=  Numbers. 

Ob. 

=  Obadiah. 

Pe. 

=  Peter. 

Phil. 

=  Philippians. 

Pr. 

=  Proverbs. 

Ps. 

=  Psalms. 

Rev. 

=  Revelation. 

Rom. 

=  Romans. 

Ru. 

=  Ruth. 

I,2S. 

=  I,  2  Samuel. 

S. 

=  Idem,  taken  together. 

S.-K. 

=  The  books  of  Samuel 

and  Kings  taken  to- 

gether. 

I,  2  Thes. 

=  I,  2  Thessalonians. 

I,  2  Tim. 

=  r,  2  Timothy. 

Tob. 

=  Tobit. 

Wisd. 

=  Wisdom  of  Solomon. 

Zc. 

=  Zechariah. 

Zp. 

=  Zephaniah. 

III.     AUTHORS  AND  WRITINGS. 


Abar. 
AE. 

AJTh. 

a  Lap. 


And. 


Arrianus 


ARW. 


Asada 


Abarbanel  (fiSoS). 

Aben  Ezra  (fi  167) ; 
Commentary. 

American  Journal 
of  Theology. 

a  Lapide,  Corneli- 
us; Commentari- 
us  in  duodecim 
Prophetas  Mino- 
res  (1628). 

Andre,  Tony;  Le 
Prophete    Aggie 

(1895)- 

Arrianus,  Fl.;  The 
Anabasis  of  Al- 
exander,  ed. 
Chinnock(i884). 

Archiv  fiir  Re  ■ 
ligions  wissen- 
schaft. 

Asada,  Eiji;  Tlie 
Hebrew  Text  of 
Zechariah  (1899). 


Baer 


Baud. 


Bauragarten 


BDB. 


Bechhaus 


=  Baer,  S.;Z/ier  cfwo- 
decim  Propheta- 
riim  (1878). 

=  Baudissin,  W.  W.; 
Studien  zur  se- 
mitischen  Relig- 
ionsgeschichte 
(1876-78). 

=  Baumgarten,  M. ; 
Die  Nachtge- 
sichte    Sacharias 

(1854-55)- 

=  Brown,  Driver 
and  Briggs;  A 
Hebrew  and 
English  Lexicon 
of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (1906). 

=  Bechhaus,  J.  H.; 
Ueber  die  Inte- 
gritiit  der  proph- 
etischen  Biicher 
des  Alten  Bundes 
(1796). 


XIV 

ABBREV 

I  AT  IONS 

Ben. 

=  W.     H.     Bennett; 

rja;  Neue  kirch- 

The  Religion   of 

liche    Zeilschrift 

t  h  e    Posl-Exilic 

(1901). 

Prophets  (1907). 

Brd. 

=  Bredenkamp,  C.  J.; 

Benz. 

=  Benzinger,  I.;  He- 

Der  Prophet 

brdische    Archd- 

Sacharja  (1879). 

ologie  (1894;  2d 

Brugsch 

=  Brugsch,  Hein.;  A 

ed.,  1907). 

History  of  Egypt 

Bertholdt 

=  Bertholdt,  L.;  Ein- 

under    the    Pha- 

leitung in  . . .  das 

raohs  (1881). 

Alte    und    Neue 

Bruston 

==  Bruston,  Ch.;  His- 

Testament 

toire  Critique  de 

(1814). 

la  Litterature  des 

Bla. 

=  Blayney,  Benj.;  A 

Hehreux  (1881). 

new     translation 

Bu. 

=  Budde,  Karl;  Zum 

of  the  Prophecies 

Text    der    drei 

of    Zechariah 

letzten  kleinen 

(1797)- 

Propheten, 

Bleek 

=  Bleek,  Fried.;  Ein- 

ZAW.,    XXVI 

leitung     in     das 

(1906). 

Alte    Testament, 

Bu.B" 

=  Idem,  Die  biblische 

ed.   Wellhausen, 

Urgeschichte 

ed.  5  (1886). 

(1883). 

Das  Zeitaller  von 

Bu.Cesch. 

=  Idem,      Geschichte 

Sacharja    Cap. 

der    althebrd- 

9-14;  SK.  (1852, 

ischen  Litteratur 

1857)- 

(1906). 

Bo. 

■=  Bottcher,      Fried.; 

Buhl 

=  Buhl,  Yr&nX?.;  Kan- 

Neue  Aehrenlese 

on  und  Text  des 

sum  Alten    Tes- 

Alten Testaments 

tament  (1863- 

(1891). 

65). 

Burger 

=  Burger,   J.   D.   F.; 

B6.§ 

=  Idem,  Ausfiihrliches 

Le  Pr  0  p  h,'l  e 

Lehrbuch  der  he- 

Zacharie  (1841). 

brdischen 

Sprache     (1867- 

Cal. 

=  Calvin,  John;  Com- 

68). 

mentaries  on  the 

Boh. 

=  Boh  me,     W.;     Zu 

Twelve  M  i n  or 

Maleachi     und 

Prophets ,  ed. 

Haggai,    ZA  W. 

Owen  (1846). 

(1887). 

C.  and  HB. 

=  Carpenter    and 

Bohmer 

=  Bohmer,  Jul.; 7/a^- 

Harford    -    Bat- 

gai   und   Sacha- 

tersby ;         The 

ABBREVIATIONS 


XV 


C.  and  HB.- 

—Continued. 

to  the  Old  Testa- 

Hexateuch 

ment  (1862-3). 

(1900). 

DB. 

=  A  Dictionary  of  the 

Carpzov 

=  Carpzov,     J.     C; 

Bible    (1898- 

Critica   Sacra 

1904). 

Veteris  Tesia- 

deD. 

=  de     Dieu,      Lud.; 

menti  (1728). 

Critica   Sacra 

Che. 

=  Cheyne,     T.     K.; 

(1693). 

Critica     Biblica, 

de  W. 

=  de  Wette,  W.   M. 

ii  (1903). 

L. ;  Einleitung  in 

Chrys. 

=  Chrysostom. 

das  AT.,   ed. 

Cocceius 

=  Cocceius.    J.;     T6 

Schrader  (1869). 

AwSeKawporpriTO  v 

DHM. 

=  D.  H.  Miiller;  Dis- 

(1652). 

cours    de    Mala- 

Conder 

=  Conder,      C.      R.; 

chie  sur  le  rite 

Tent  Life  in  Pal- 

des   sacrifices. 

estine  (1878). 

Revue    biblique 

Cor. 

=  Cornill,C.H.;£/«- 

internationale,  V 

leitung     in     die 

(1896),    535-539 

kanonisc  hen 

(  =  Strophenbau 

Biicher  des  Alten 

und  Responsion 

Testaments,    ed. 

[1898],    pp.    40- 

6  (1908). 

45). 

Corrodi 

=  Corrodi,    H.;    Ver- 

Di. 

=  D  i  1 1  m  a  n  n,  A.; 

such    einer    Be- 

Handbuch      der 

leuchtung      d  e  r 

alttestament- 

Geschichte     des 

lichen   Theologie 

jud.     u.    christl. 

(1895). 

Kanons  (1792). 

Diodorus 

=  Diodorus    Siculus; 

Cyr. 

=  Cyril    of    Alexan- 

History. 

dria  (t444);   ed. 

DI. 

=  Delitzsch,     Fried.; 

Migne,  iv. 

A ssyrisc  he  s 
Handworter- 

Da. 

=  Davidson,    A.    B.; 

huch  (1896). 

The  Theology  of 

Dl.P^'- 

=  Idem,   Wo  lag  das 

the    Old    Testa- 

Parodies? (1881). 

ment  (1904). 
=  Idem,  Heb.  Gram- 

Dr. 

=  S.  R.  Driver,   The 

Da.§ 

Minor    Prophets 

{The   Century 

mar. 

Bible;  1906). 

Dathe 

=  Dathe,     J.     A.; 

Dr.i"t- 

=  Idem,   Introduction 

Propheta    Mino- 

to  the  Literature 

res  (1773). 

of  the  Old  Testa- 

Davidson 

=  Davidson,  S  a  m'l; 

ment,    Revised 

A  n    Introduction 

ed.   (1910). 

XVI 

ABBREV 

[ATIONS 

Dr.4 

=  Idem,  The   Use  of 

Alte    Testament, 

the     Tenses     in 

ed.  4  (1824). 

Hebrew,    e  d .    6 

Ephraem 

=  Ephraem    S  y  r  u  s 

(1898). 

(t373);     Expl^- 

Drake 

=  Drake,  W.;  Haggai 

natio  in   Zacha- 

and     Zechariah 

riam. 

(The   Speaker's 

Ew. 

=  Ewald,  Hein.;  Die 

C  ommentary) 

Propheten     d  e  s 

(1876). 

A  It  en    Bundes 

Dru. 

=  D  r  u  s  i  us,    Joh.; 

(1867-68). 

Commentarius  in 

Ew.^^ 

=  Idem,   Ausfiihr- 

Prophetas  Mino- 

liches    Lehrbuch 

resXII.  (1627). 

der  heb.  Sprache 

Du. 

=  Duhm,      Bernh.; 
Das   Buch  Jere- 

(1870). 

mia    {Kurzer 
Hand  -  Commen- 

Flugge 

=  Flugge,  B.  G.;  Die 
Weissagungen 

tar)  (1901). 

welche    bey    den 

Du.P'°- 

=  Idem,    Die   zwolf 

Schr  ift e  n   des 

Propheten  in  den 
Versniassen    der 
Urschrift    iiber- 

Propheten  Zach- 
arias  beygebogen 
sind  (1784). 

selzt    (1910);    or 
Annterkungen  zu 
den  zwolf  Proph- 
eten,   ZAW., 

Forberg 

=  Forberg,  Ed.;  Com- 
mentarius in 
Zacharice      vati- 

XXXI  (1911). 

ciniorum  partem 

DuJheol. 

=  Idem,  Die  Theolo- 

posterior  em 

gie   der   Prophe- 

(1824). 

ten  (1875). 

Furst 

=  FUrst,     Jul.;     Der 

Duncker 

=  Duncker,  Max; 

Kanon  des  Allen 

History   of   An- 

Testaments 

tiquity,  from  the 

(1868). 

German    (1877- 

82). 

GASm. 

=  Smith,  G.  A.;  The 

EB. 

=  Encycloptcdia   Bih- 
lica  (1899- 1 903). 

Book  of  the 
Twelve     Proph- 

Eckardt 

=  Eckardt,    R.;    Der 

ets,  I  (1896);   II 

Sprachge- 

(1898). 

br  auch     von 

GASm.Hf- 

=  Idem,  The  Histori- 

Zach.,    9-14; 

cal  Geography  of 

ZAW.      XIII 

the    Holy    Land 

(1893). 

(1894). 

Eichhorn 

=  Eichhorn,     J.    G.; 

Geiger 

=  Geiger,     A.;      Ur- 

Einleitung in  das 

schrift    und   Ue- 

ABBREVIATIONS 


xvu 


Geiger — Continued. 

bersetzungen  der 
Bibel  (1857). 

Ges.  =  Gesenius.W.;  Cow- 

mentar  iiber  den 
Jesaia  (182 1). 

Ges.^  =  Cesenius'    Hebrew 

Grammar,  ed. 
Kautzsch, 
(1909^) ;  trans. 
Collins  &  Cow- 
ley (1910-). 

Gie.  =  Giesebrecht,  Fried.; 

Das  Buck  Jere- 
mia  {Handkom- 
mentar)  (1894). 

Gins.i'"-  =  Ginsburg,  D.;  In- 

trodtiction  to  .  .  . 
Hebrew  Bible 
(1897). 

Gratz  =  Gratz,  H.;    Emen- 

dationes,  Fasc.  2 
(1893). 

Gray  =  Gray,  G.  B.;  He- 

brew Proper 
Names  (1896). 

Grot.  =  Grotius,Hugo;/lM- 

notata  ad  Vetus 
Testamentum 
(1644). 

Griitzmacher  =  Griitzmacher,  G.; 
Untersuchun- 
gen  iiber  den 
Ursprung  der  in 
Zach.  9-14  vor- 
liegenden  Pro- 
phetien  (1892). 

Gunkel  =  Gunkel,  H.;5cAo/>- 

fung  und  Chaos 
(1895). 

Gu.  =  Guthe,    H.;    The 

Books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah 
{SBOT.)  (1901). 


H.AH  =  Harper,  W.  R.; 

A  mos  and  Hosea 
(ICC.)  (1905). 

Hal.  =  J.    Halevy;   Le 

prophete  Mala- 
chie,  Revue  se- 
mitique,  XVII 
(1909),  1-44. 

Hammond  =  Hammond,  H.; 
Paraphrase  and 
A  n  notations 
upon  all  the 
Books  of  the  New 
Testament 
(1653). 

Hanauer  =  Hanauer,     J.     E.; 

Tales  Told  in 
Palestine  (1904). 

Hd.  =  Henderson,  E.  The 

Book  of  the 
Twelve  Minor 
Prophets  (1868). 

Hengstenberg  =  Hengstenberg,  E. 
W. ;  Die  A  uthen- 
tie  des  Daniel 
und  die  integri- 
tdt  des  Sacharja 
(1831). 

Herodotus  =  Herodotus ;  History, 
ed.  Rawlinson 
(3)  (1875)- 

Hi.  =  Hitzig,  Ferd.;  Die 

zw  0  If  kleinen 
Propheten,  ed. 
Steiner  (1881). 

Houb.  =  Houbigant,  C.  F.; 

Notae  criticae  in 
universos  Veteris 
Testament  i  libros 
(1777)- 

HPA .  =  Wickes ;  Hebrew 

Poetical  Accents. 


XVlll 

HPS. 

ICC. 
Isop. 

Jastrow 

JBL. 
Jer. 

Jos.^"'- 

Jos/P- 

JTS. 

JQR. 

KAT. 


ABBRFA'IATIONS 


Kau. 


KB. 


Ke. 


Smith,  H.  P.;  Old 
Testament  His- 
tory (1903). 

:  International  Crit- 
ical Commentary. 

--  O.  Isopescul,  Der 
Prophet  Mala- 
ccas (1908). 

=  Jastrow,  M.;  The 
Religion  of  Baby- 
lonia and  Assy- 
ria (1898). 

=  Journal  of  Biblical 
Literature. 

=  Jerome  (t42o); 
Commentarii. 

=  Josephus,  FL;  An- 
tiquities of  the 
Jews. 

=1 dem,  Contra 
Apion. 

=  Journal  of  Theolog- 
ical Studies. 

=  Jeivish  Quarterly 
Review. 

=  Schrader,   E.;   Die 
Keilinschriften 
und  das  Alte 
Testament,  ed.  2 
C1883);     ed.    3 
(Zimmern   and 
W  i  n  c  k  1  e  r  ) 
(1902). 
=  Kautzsch,  E.;  Die 
heilige       Schrift 
des  alien   Testa- 
ment s,  ed.  3 
(1910). 
=  Keilinschrift- 
liche     Bibliothek 
(1889- I 900). 
=  Keil,   C.    F.;    Bib- 
lischer  Com  men- 


Kent 


Ki. 


Kidder 


Kl. 


Klie. 


Klo. 


Knobel 


Ko.F-i..!. 


Ko.« 


Koh. 


tar  iiber  die 
zw  olf  kleinen 
Propheten 

(1873)- 

=  C.  F.  Kent;  Ser- 
mons, Epistles 
and  Apocalypses 
of  Israel's  Proph- 
ets (1910). 

=  K  i  m  c  h  i,  David 
(ti23o);  Com- 
mentary. 

=  Kidder,  Rich.; 
Demonstration  of 
the  Messiah 
(1700). 

=  P.  Kleinert;  Die 
Profeten  Israels 
in  s  ozialer 
B  e  zi  e  h  un  g 

(1905)- 
=  Kliefoth,  Th.;  Der 

Prophet  Sacha- 

rjah  (1862). 
=  Klostermann,  Aug. ; 

Geschichte    des 

V  olkes  Israel 

(1896). 
=  Knobel,    A.;    Der 

Prophetismus 

der    Hebrder 

(1837)- 
=  Konig,  F.  E.;  Ein- 
leittmg     in     das 
Alte     Testament 

(1893)- 
=  Idem,    Syntax   der 
hehr a i sc  hen 
Sprache  (1897). 

=  Kohler,  Aug.;  Die 
nachexilischen 
Propheten  (1860- 
65). 


ABBREVIATIONS 


XIX 


Kosters  =  Kosters,     W.     H.; 

Die  Wiederher- 
stellung  Israels, 
from  the  Dutch 

(1895)- 

Koster  =  Koster,    F.   B.; 

Meletemata  .  .  . 
in  Z  a  c  h  ar  i  (P 
ProphetcE  partem 
posterior e  ni 
Cap.  ix-xiv 
(1818). 

Kraetzschmar  =  Kraetzschmar,  R.; 
Das  Buch  Eze- 
chiel  {Handkom- 
mentar)  (1900). 

Kue.  =  Kuenen,  A.;  His- 

torisch  -  kritisch 
Onderzoek  naar 
het  Ontstaan  en 
de  Verzamling 
van  de  Boeken 
des  Ouden  Ver- 
b  ond s,  ed.  2 
(1889-93). 

Kui.  =  Kuiper,      A.     K.; 

Zacharia,  ix-xiv 
(1894). 


Lowth 


Lambert 

Lange 

Ley 
Lowe 


Lambert,  M.; 
Notes  Excge- 
tiques;  RE  J., 
tome  43,  pp. 
268/. 

Lange,  J.  P.;  Die 
Prophelen  Hag- 
gai,  Sacharja, 
und  M aleachi 
(1876). 

Ley,  J.;  Zu  Sacha- 
r-ja  6:9-15. 

Lowe,  W.  H.;  The 
Hebrew  Student's 
Commentarv    on 


Mahaffy 


Marck 


Marti 


Marti^^*" 


Matthes 


Zechariah 
(1882). 
Lowth,  Wm. ;  Com- 
mentary upon  the 
Prophecy  of 
Daniel  and  the 
XII.  Minor 
Prophets  (ron- 
tinuation  of  Pat- 
rick's Commen- 
t  a  r  y,  ed.  6) 
(1766). 

Mahaffy,  J.  P.; 
Egypt  under  the 
Ptolemies 
(1899). 
A  History  of  Egypt 
iv  (1899).  See 
Petrie. 

■■  Marck,  Joh.;  Com- 
ment arius  in 
duodecim  Proph- 
etas  M  inore  s 
(1784). 

=  Marti,  Karl;  Dode- 
kapr  o phet  on 
(1904). 
Der  Prophet  Sach- 
arja der  Zeitge- 
nosse  Zerubbabels 
(1892). 
Zwei  Studien  zu 
Sacharja;  SK. 
(1892). 

=  Idem,  Der  Prophet 
M aleachi,  in 
Kautzsch's 
Heilige  Schrift 
(19 10),  pp.  97- 
104. 

=  Matthes,  J.  C; 
iTa^.  1:9;  2:15- 
19;  ZAW.  (1903). 


XX 

Mau. 

Mede 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Meyer 


Mich. 


Mitchell 


Montet 


Moore 


Neumann 


Maurer,  F.  J.  V. 
D.;  Comment ari- 
us  .  .  .  in  Vetus 
Testamentum,  ii 
(1840). 

Mede,  Joseph;  Dis- 
sertationum  ec- 
clesiaslicarum 
triga.  Quibus 
accedunt  f  r  a  g- 
menta  sacra 
(1653). 

Meyer,  Ed.;  Die 
Entstehung  des 
Judenthiims 
(1896). 

Geschichte  des  Al- 
ter t  hunts,  iii 
(1901). 
•■  Michaelis,J.  D.,  on 
Flugge's  Weis- 
sagungen,  etc. ; 
Neue  orienta- 
lische  und  exege- 
tische  Bihliothek 
(1786). 

Mitchell,  H.  G.; 
Some  Final  Con- 
structions in  Bib- 
li  c  a  I  Hebrew 
(1879). 

Montet,  E.;  Etude 
critique  sur  la 
date  assignable 
aux  six  dernier 
chapUres  de 
Zacharie  (1882). 

Moore,  T.  V. ;  II ag- 
gai,  Zechariah, 
and  Malachi 
(1856). 

Neumann,  W. ;  Die 
Weissagu  u  <^en 


New. 


Nickel 


N5. 


Norzi 


Now. 


NoW.Arch- 


Now.'^ 


Nrd. 


Oesterley 


OIs. 


des  Sacharja 
(i860). 

Newcome,  Wm. ; 
The  Twelve 
Minor  Prophets, 
ed.  2  (1809). 

Nickel,  Joh.;  Die 
Wiederherstel- 
lung  des  jiid. 
C  e  m  e  i  n  d  e- 
wesens  nach  dem 
Exil  (1899). 

N6ldeke,Th.;/lw/- 
sdtze  zur  per- 
s  i  s  c  he  n  G  e- 
schichte    (1887). 

Norzi,  J.  S.;  Se- 
pher  'arba'ah  we- 
'esrim  (Hebrew 
Bible)  (1742). 

Nowack,  W.;  Die 
kleinen  Prophe- 
ten  {Handkom- 
mentar),  2d  ed. 

(1903)- 

Idem,  Lehrbiich  der 
hebrciischen  Ar- 
ch iiologie  (1894). 

Idem,  Duodecim 
Prophetae,  in 
Kittel's  Biblia 
Hebraica  (1906). 

Nordheimer,  I.;  ^1 
Critical  Gram- 
mar of  the  He 
brew  Language 
(1840). 

Oesterley,  W.  O. 
E.;  Old  Latin 
Texts  of  the 
Minor  Prophets; 
ITS.,  V. 

O  I  sh  au  s  en,  J.; 
I.ehrbuch  der  he- 


ABBREVIATIONS 


XXI 


Ols  —Conlinued. 

meftt  in  the  Light 

brdischen 

of  the  Historical 

Sprache    (1861). 

Records    of   As- 

Oort 

=  Oort,    H.;    Textus 

syria  and  Baby- 

Hebraici   Emen- 

lotiia  (1902). 

dationes  (1900). 

Polybius 

=  Polybius;      Histo- 

Or. 

=  vonOrelli,  C;  Die 

ries,  ed.    Shuck- 

zw  olf    kleinen 

burgh  (1889). 

Propheten 

Prasek 

=  Prasek,  J.  V.;  Ge- 

{Kurzg  efa  ss- 

schichte  der  Me- 

ter  Kommentar), 

der    und    Perser 

3d   ed.  (1908); 

(1906). 

(Eng.,  1893). 

PRE." 

=  Protest  antische 
Real-Encyklo- 

P 

=  Priestly    writer    of 

pddie,  3d  ed. 

Hexateuch. 

Pres. 

=  Pressel,  W.;  Com- 

PEF. 

=  Palestine   Explora- 

mentar   zu    den 

tion  Fund. 

Schriften  der  Pro- 

Peiser 

=  Peiser,    F.   E.;  Zu 

pheten    Haggad, 

Zacharia;  Orien- 

Sacharja,  und 

talistische  Liter a- 

Maleachi  (1870). 

turzeitung 

Prince 

=  Prince,    J.    D.;    A 

(1901). 

Critical    Com- 

Pem. 

=  Pemble,    Wm.;    A 

mentary    on    the 

Short  and  Sweet 

Book    of  Daniel 

Exposition  upon 

(1899). 

the  First  9  Chap- 

Pu. 

=  Pusey,  E.  B.;  The 

ters   of  Zacharie 

Minor    Prophets 

(1658). 

(1885). 

Pen 

=  Perowne,  J.  J.  S.; 

H  a  g  gat    and 

Ra. 

=  Rashi  (Rab.  Shelo- 

Zechariah 

mohben  Yishak, 

(1893)- 

1040-1105); 

Peters 

=  Peters,  J.  P.;  Nip- 

Commentary. 

pur  (1897). 

RB. 

=  Revue  Biblique. 

Petrie 

=  Petrie,  W.  M.  F.; 

Reinke 

=  Reinke,    L.;    D  er 

A      History     of 

Prophet    Malea- 

Egypt, m{igos). 

chi  (1856). 

Piepenbring 

=  Piepenbring,    C  h. ; 

Idem,  Der  Prophet 

Theology   of  the 

Haggai  (1868). 

Old     Testament, 

REJ. 

=  Revue    des  Etudes 

irom  the  French 

Juives. 

(1893)- 

Reu. 

=  Reuss,    Ed.;    Das 

Pinches 

=  Pinches,     T.     G.; 

A  He     Testament 

The  Old   Testa- 

(1892-94). 

Rib. 

=  de  Ribera,  F. ;  Cont- 

auctore  propheta 

mentarius  in   li- 

(1856). 

brosXIl.Prophe- 

SBOT. 

=  Sacred  Books  of  the 

tarum  (1581). 

Old     Testament, 

Ries. 

=  Riessler,     P.,    Die 

Paul  Haupt,  Ed- 

kleinen Propheten 

itor. 

(1911). 

Schegg 

=  P.   Schegg;  Die 

Robinson 

=  Robinson,    G.    L.; 

Kleinen    Propli- 

The     Prophecies 

eten,  II  (1854). 

of    Zechariah 

Seb. 

=  Sebok,  Mark;  Die 

(1896). 

syrische     Ueber- 

Rodkinson 

=  Rodkinson,  M.  L.; 

setzung  der  zwolf 

The   Babylonian 

kleinen    Prophe- 

Talmud in  Eng- 

ten (1887). 

lish  (1896-1903). 

Seek. 

=  Seeker,    Thos.; 

Rogers 

=^  Rogers,  R.  W.;  A 

Manuscript 

History  of  Bab- 

notes   cited    by 

ylonia    and   As- 

Newcome. 

syria  (1900). 

Sellin 

=  Sellin,  Ernest;  Se- 

Rosenm. 

=  Rosenmiiller,  E.  F. 

rubbabel  (1898). 

C;     Scholia    in 

Studien    zur    Ent- 

Prophetas      Mi- 

stehungs ge- 

nor  es  (1836). 

schichte  der  jiid. 

Rothstein 

=  Rothstein,    J.   W.; 

Gemeinde     nach 

Die  Genealogie 

dem    bab.      Exil 

des  Konigs  Joja- 

(1901). 

chin  tind   seiner 

Siev. 

=  Sievers,    Ed.;    Me- 

Nachkommen 

trische  Studien,  I 

(1902). 

(1901). 
Alttestamentliche 

RP. 

=  Records  of  the  Past, 

ed.  2  (1889). 

Miscellen,    4, 

Rub. 

=  Rubinkam,   N.  I.; 

Zu   Maleachi 

The  Second  Part 

(1905/.). 

of  the    Book    of 

SK. 

=  Studien  und  Kriti- 

Zechariah 

ken. 

(1892). 

Sm. 

=  Smend,    R.;   Lehr- 

Sanctius 

=  Sanctius  (Sanchez), 
C.;  Commentari- 

buch    der   alltes- 
tamentlichen 

us  in  Prophdas 

Reli  gions  ge- 
schichte,    2d   ed. 

Minores  (162 1). 

(1899). 
=  Spoer,  Hans;  Some 
new    considera- 

Sandrock 

=  Sandrock,    H.    L.; 
Prioris  el  poste- 

Spoer 

rioris     Zacharice 

partis     vaticinia 

tions  towards  the 

ab  una  eodemque 

dating    of    t  h  e 

ABBREVIATIONS 


XXlll 


Spoer — Continued. 


SS. 


Sta. 


Sta.§ 


StaGvi 


Sta.Theol. 


Staerk 


Stah. 


Stei. 


Stek. 


Bk.  of  Malachi, 
JQR.,  XX 
(1908). 
=  C.  Siegfried  and  B. 
Stade,  Hehrd- 
isches  Worter- 
buch  Ztim  Allen 
Testamenle 

(1893). 

«=  Stade,  B  ern  h.; 
Deulerozacha- 
rja;  ZAW.  (1881, 
1882). 

=  Idem,  Lehrhuch  der 
hebrdischen 
Grammaiik 
(1879). 

=  Idem,  Geschichle 
des  Volkes  Israel 
(1887-88). 

=  Idem,  Biblische 
Theologie  des 
Alien  Testa- 
ments (1905). 

=  Staerk,  W.;  Unter- 
suchungen  iiber 
die  Composition 
und  Abfassungs- 
zeit  von  Zach. 
9-14  (1891). 

=  Stahelin,  J.  J.;  Eiti- 
leitung  in  die 
kanon  ischen 
Biicher  des  Allen 
Testaments 
(1862). 

=  Steiner,  H.;  addi- 
tions to  Hitzig's 
Kleine  Prophe- 
ten. 

=  J.  Z.  Schuurmans 
Stekhoven ;  D  e 
Alexandrijnsclie 


Ston. 


Vertaling  van 
het  Dodekapro- 
pheton  (1887). 
Stonard,  John;  A 
Commentary  on 
the  Vision  of 
Zechariah 
(1824). 


Talm. 


ThSt. 
Theiner 


=  Talmud:  Tal.B-, 
the  Babylonian; 
Tal.J-,  the  Jeru- 
salem Talmud. 

=  Theol.  Stud. 

=  Theiner,  J.  A.; 
Die  zwolf  kleinen 
Propheten 
(1828). 
Theod.  Mops.  =  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  (t429) ; 
Quae  Supersunt 
Omnia,  ed.  Weg- 
nern  (1834). 
Theodoret  =  Theodoret  (t457); 
Commentarius 
in  duodecim  Pro- 
phetas,  ed.  1642. 

=  C.  C.  Torrey;  The 
Prophecy  of  Mal- 
achi, J  B  L  . , 
XVII  (1898), 
1-15;  and  art. 
Malachi  in  EB., 
Ill  (1902). 

=  Toy,  C.  H.;  The 
Book  of  t  he 
Prophet  Ezekiel 
(SBOT.)  (1899). 
Evil  Spirits  in  tfte 
Bible,  JBL.,  IX 
(1890). 

=  Tristram,  H.  B.; 
Natural  History 


Torrey 


Toy 


Tristram 


XXIV 


ABBREVIATIONS 


Tristram — Continued. 

of   the    Bible 

(1873). 

van  H.  =  V  a  n     licxinacker, 

A.;  Les  douze 
petils  prophctes 
(1908). 
Les  chapUres  ix- 
xiv  du  livre 
Zecharie,  RB. 
(1902). 

Vatke  =  Vatke,     W.;     Bib- 

lische    Theologie 

(1834). 
V.  Ort.  =  von  Ortenberg,  E. 

F.  J.;  Die  Be- 
standtheile  d  e  s 
Buches  Sacharja 
(1859). 

We.  «=  Wellhausen,        J.; 

Die  kleinen 
Propheten,  ed.  3 
(1898). 

We.'J*^  =  Idem,    Israelitische 

und  j ii  disc  he 
Geschichte 
(1907). 

Weber  =  Weber,  Ferd.;  Alt- 

synagogalische 
paldstinische 
Theologie 
(1880). 

Whiston  =  Whiston,  Wm.;£;5- 

say  toward  re- 
storing the  true 
text  of  the  Old 
Testament 
(1722). 

Wickes  =  Wickes,  Wm.;  Tlie 


Hebrew  Prose 
Accents  (1888). 
Wiedemann  =  Wiedemann,  A.; 
Geschichte  Ae- 
g  y  p  t  e  n  s  von 
Psammetik  I.  bis 
auf  Alexander 
den  G  r  o  s  s  e  n 
(1880). 
Wild.  =  Wildeboer,  G.;  De 

Lelterkunde 
des  Ouden   Ver- 
bonds  (1886;    3d 
ed.,  1903). 
Wilson  =  Wilson,  C.  T.; 

Peasant  Lije  in 
the    Holy    Land 
(1906). 
Wkl.  =  Winckler,    Hugo; 

Maleachi,  Altor- 
ientalische  For- 
s chun gen,  II 
(1899),  531-539- 
Wri.  =  Wright,  C.  H.  H.; 

Zechariah  and 
his  Propliecies 
(1879). 
WRS.o'T-'c  =  W.  Robertson 
Smith;  Old 
Testament  in  the 
Jewish  Church. 
WRS.P'  =  Idem,  The  Proph- 

ets of  Israel. 


ZAW.;ZATW 


ZDPV. 


=  Zeitschrift  far  die 
alttestamentliche 
Wissenschaft. 

=  Zeitschrift  des 
deutschen  Palds- 
tina-V  ereins. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


XXV 


IV.     GENERAL,  ESPECIALLY  GRAMMATICAL. 


abs. 

=  absolute. 

def. 

=  defective. 

abstr. 

=  abstract. 

del. 

=  dele,  strike  out. 

ace. 

=  accusative. 

dittog. 

=  dittography. 

ace.  cog. 

=  cognate  ace. 

dub. 

=  dubious,  doubtful. 

ace.  pers. 

=  ace.  of  person. 

E. 

=  east,  eastern. 

ace.  rei. 

=  ace.  of  thing. 

ed.,  edd. 

=  edition,  editions. 

ace.  to 

=  according  to. 

act. 

=  active. 

e.g. 

=  for  example. 

elsw. 

=  elsewhere. 

adj. 

=  adjective. 

adv. 

=  adverb. 

esp. 

=  especially. 

el  al. 

=  et    aliter,    and    else- 

Utt. or  a.x. 

=  dira^  XeySfifvov^  word 
or  phr.  used  once. 
=  alternative. 

where,  and  others 

alt. 

Eth. 

=  Ethiopic. 

alw. 

=  always. 

exc. 

=  except. 

apod. 

=  apodosis. 

/.,!■ 

=  and  following. 

Ar. 

=  Arabic. 

fem. 

=  feminine. 

Aram. 

=  Aramaic,  Aramean. 

fig. 

=  figurative. 

art. 

=  article. 

Jin 

=  toward  the  end. 

Assy. 

=  Assyria,  Assyrian. 

f.  n. 

=  foot-note. 

freq. 

=  frequentative. 

Bab. 

=  Babylonian. 

fut. 

=  future. 

b.  Aram. 

=  biblical  Aramaic. 

bibl. 

=  biblical. 

gen. 

=  genitive. 

gent. 

=  gentilic. 

eaus. 

=  causative. 

Gk. 

=  Greek. 

ch.,  chs. 

=  chapter,  chapters. 

haplog. 

=  haplography. 

c. 

=  circa,  about. 

Heb. 

=  Hebrew. 

cod.,  eodd. 

=  codex,  codices. 

Hiph. 

=  Hiphil  of  verb. 

cog. 

=  cognate. 

Hithp. 

=  Hithpael  of  verb. 

col.,  coll. 

=  column,  columns. 

com. 

=  commentary,       com- 

id. 

=  idem,  the  same. 

mentators. 

i.  e. 

=  id  est,  that  is. 

cp. 

=  compare. 

impf. 

=  imperfect. 

concr. 

=  concrete. 

imv. 

=  imperative. 

cf. 

=  confer,  compare. 

indef. 

=  indefinite. 

conj. 

=  conjunction. 

inf. 

=  infinitive. 

consec. 

=  consecutive. 

ins. 

=  inscription,      inscrip- 

estr. 

=  construct. 

tions. 

constr. 

=  construction. 

intrans. 

=  intransitive. 

contra 

=  contrariwise. 

Intro. 

=  Introduction 

crit.  n. 

=  critical  note. 

juss. 

=  jussive. 

d.  f. 

=  daghesh  forte. 

1.,  11. 

=  line,  lines. 

XXVI 
I.e. 

ABB 
=  loco     citato,     in 

REV 

the 

lATIONS 
Qal 

=  Qal  of  verb. 

place  before  ci 

ted. 

q.  V. 

=  quod  vide,  which  see. 

lit 

=  literal,  literally. 

rd.,  rds. 

=  read,  reads. 

marg. 

=  margin,  marginal 

ren. 

=  refle.xive. 

masc. 

=  masculine. 

rcl. 

=  relative. 

metr. 

=  metrical. 

rm. 

=  remark. 

mod. 

=  modern. 

mss. 

=  manuscripts. 

S. 

=  south,  southern. 

mt. 

=  mount(ain). 

SE. 

=  south-cast. 

mir.  cs. 

=  metri    causa    = 

for 

SW. 

=  south-west. 

the  sake   of 

the 

Sab. 

=  Sabean. 

metre. 

sf.,  sfs. 
sg- 

=  suffix,  suffixes. 
=  singular. 

N. 

=  north,  northern. 

sq. 

=  followed  by. 

NE. 

=  north-east. 

sir. 

=  strophe. 

NW. 

=  north-west. 

subj. 

=  subject. 

n. 

=  note. 

subst. 

=  substantive. 

NH. 

=  New  Hebrew. 

Syr. 

=  Syriac. 

Niph. 

=  Niphal  of  verb. 

S.  V. 

=  sub  voce. 

obj. 

=  object. 

t. 

=  times     (following     a 

oft. 

=  often. 

number). 

om.,  oms. 

=  omit,  omits. 

text.  n. 

=  textual  note. 

p.,  pp. 

=  page,  pages. 

tr. 

=  transpose. 

parall. 

=  parallelism. 

trans. 

=  transitive. 

part. 

=  particle. 

v.,  vv- 

=  verse,  verses. 

pass. 

=  passive. 

V. 

=  vide,  sec. 

pers. 

=  person. 

vb. 

=  verb. 

pf. 

=  perfect. 

V.  i. 

=  vide  infra,  see  below 

Pi. 

=  Piel  of  verb. 

(usually  t  e  X  t  u  al 

pi. 

=  plural. 

note     on     same 

plupf. 

=  pluperfect. 

verse). 

Po. 

=  Polel. 

viz. 

=  videlicet,    namely,    to 

pred. 

=  predicate. 

wit. 

preg. 

=  pregnant. 

voc. 

=  vocative. 

prep. 

=  preposition. 

V.  s. 

=  vide  supra,  see  above 

prob. 

=  probable. 

(usually  general  re- 

pron. 

=  pronoun. 

m  a  r  k    on    same 

proph. 

=  prophet,  prophetic. 

verse) . 

prtc. 

=  participle. 

Pu. 

=  Pual  of  verb. 

W. 

;=  west,  western. 

A 

CRITICAL   AND    EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

ON 

HAGGAI  AND  ZECHARIAH 

BY 

HINCKLEY  G.  MITCHELL, 

PROrESSOR   OF   HEBREW   AND   OLD   TESTAMENT   EXEGESIS 
IN   TUFTS   COLLEGE 


INTRODUCTION. 

THE   HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND    OF 
THE  PROPHECIES    OF   HAGGAI   AND   ZECHARIAH. 

§  I.       CYRUS. 

The  career  of  Cyrus  was  watched  with  the  intensest  interest 
from  the  beginning  by  all  the  peoples  of  western  Asia.  The  bold- 
ness and  success  of  his  invasion  of  Media  in  550  B.C.,  and  the  vig- 
our with  which  he  enforced  his  sovereignty  over  this  great  king- 
dom, drove  Croesus  of  Lydia  and.  Nabonidus  of  Babylonia  to 
an  alliance  with  each  other  and  with  Ahmes  of  Egypt  for  their 
common  protection.  The  degree  of  interest  among  the  Baby- 
lonians appears  from  a  chronicle  of  the  period  in  which  there  is 
an  account,  not  only  of  the  Median  campaign,  but  of  one,  three 
years  later,  in  another  direction,  as  well  as  of  that  which  in  539 
B.C.  resulted  in  the  occupation  of  Babylon  and  the  submission  of 
the  empire  of  which  it  was  the  capital.*  When  the  conqueror 
finally  invaded  Babylonia  the  inhabitants  took  different  attitudes 
toward  him.  The  king  and  his  party,  including  the  crown  prince, 
Belshazzar,  of  course,  did  what  they  could  to  withstand  him. 
The  priests,  on  the  other  hand,  whom  Nabonidus  had  offended 
by  neglecting  the  worship  of  Marduk  and  bringing  the  gods  of 
other  cities  in  numbers  to  the  capital,  favoured  him.  In  fact,  they 
betrayed  their  country  into  his  hands  and  welcomed  him  as  its 
deliverer. t  There  was  a  similar  division  among  the  Jews  set- 
tled in  Babylonia.  Some  of  them,  much  as  they  may  have  heard 
of  the  magnanimity  of  the  Persian  king,  dreaded  his  approach. 

♦  KB.,  iii,  2,  128  }f.;   Pinches,  OT.,  411. 

t  KB.,  iii,  2,  124  ff.,  132  if.;   Pinches,  OT.,  415  /. 

3 


4  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

It  is  they,  perhaps,  to  whom  certain  passages  in  the  second  part 
of  the  book  of  Isaiah  were  addressed,  notably  the  following: 

'.  "Woe  to  him  that  striveth  with  his  Maker, — 
a  potsherd  among  the  potsherds  of  the  ground! 
"Doth  the  clay  say  to  the  potter,  What  makest  thou? 
or  his  work,  Thou  hast  no  hands? 
".  "Thus  saith  Yahvveh, 

the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  even  his  Maker: 
"Of  future  things  ask  me, 

and  concerning  the  work  of  my  hands  command  me. 
>*.  "I  myself  made  the  earth, 
and  man  on  it  I  created; 
"My  hands  stretched  out  heaven, 
and  all  its  hosts  I  commanded. 
".  "I  myself  aroused  him  in  righteousness, 
and  all  his  ways  will  I  direct; 
"He  shall  build  my  city, 

and  all  my  captives  shall  he  release; 
"Not  for  hire,  and  not  for  reward, 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts."  * 

There  was,  however,  another  party.  At  any  rate,  the  author  of 
the  lines  ju.st  quoted  was  enthusiastic  in  his  faith,  not  only  that 
Cyrus  would  succeed,  but  that  his  success  meant  deliverance  to 
the  Jews  in  exile.  He  recognised  in  the  Persian  king  an  instru- 
ment of  Yahweh.  Cj.  Is.  41^  ^-  ^  46".  Indeed, — and  he  must 
thereby  have  greatly  scandalised  many  of  his  countrymen, — he 
went  so  far  as  to  identify  Cyrus  with  the  Ideal  King  for  whom 
the  Jews  had  long  been  praying  and  looking.  CJ.  Is.  44"*  45'. 
He  was  so  confident  of  victory  for  this  divinely  chosen  champion 
that  he  boldly  foretold  the  fall  of  Babylon  and  exhorted  the  exiles 
to  prepare  for  their  departure.  Cf.  Is.  46*  ^-  47*  ^-  48-"  '•  52". 
Finally,  he  predicted  that  Cyrus,  having  released  them  from  cap- 
tivity, would  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  restore  the  temple,  its  chief 
ornament.  This  last  prophecy  is  so  important  that  it  deserves 
to  be  quoted  entire.     It  runs  as  follows: 

'•".  "Thus  saith  Yahweh,  thy  Redeemer, 

and  he  that  formed  thee  from  the  womb; 

♦  Is.  45'  "■.     On  tlic  diangcs  and  omissions  in  the  pass.ige  as  here  remiered,  c\.  Cheyne, 
SBOT. 


CYRUS  5 

"I  am  Yahweh,  that  made  all  things, 
that  stretched  out  heaven  alone; 

when  I  spread  out  the  earth  who  was  with  me? 
*5.  "That  thwarteth  the  signs  of  the  praters, 
and  maketh  diviners  foolish; 
"That  confuteth  the  wise, 

and  turneth  their  knowledge  into  folly; 
26.  "That  establisheth  the  word  of  his  servants, 
and  fulfilleth  the  counsel  of  his  messengers; 
"That  saith  of  Jerusalem,  It  shall  be  peopled 

(and  of  the  cities  of  Judah,  Let  them  be  rebuilt), 
and  its  ruins  will  I  restore; 
".  "That  saith  to  the  deep,  Be  dry, 
and  thy  streams  will  I  dry  up; 
M.  "That  saith  of  Cyrus,  My  shepherd, 
and  all  my  pleasure  shall  he  fulfil; 
"That  saith  to  Jerusalem,  Be  built, 
and  to  the  temple.  Be  founded."  * 

Cyrus  seems  to  have  more  than  fulfilled  the  expectations  of  his 
Babylonian  partisans.  The  chronicle  to  which  reference  has  been 
made  says,  "He  gave  peace  to  the  city;  Cyrus  proclaimed  peace 
to  all  Babylonia.  Gobryas  his  lieutenant  he  appointed  governor 
of  Babylon."  It  adds  a  most  significant  item,  namely,  "From 
Kislew  onward  to  Adar  the  gods  of  Akkad,  whom  Nabonidus  had 
brought  down  to  Babylon,  returned  to  their  cities."  f  Cyrus,  in 
an  inscription  of  his  own,  refers  to  the  same  matter  and  claims 
further  credit  for  restoring  both  the  gods  and  the  people  of  cer- 
tain districts  on  the  Tigris  to  their  homes.  He  adds  a  prayer 
that  these  gods  in  return  may  daily  remind  Bel  and  Nebo  to 
lengthen  his  days  and  bestow  upon  him  their  favour.| 

These  interesting  records  must  not  be  misunderstood.  They 
do  not  mean  that  at  this  time  the  Persian  conqueror  abandoned 
the  religion  of  his  fathers  and  adopted  that  of  the  Babylonians; 
but  that,  being  magnanimous  by  nature,  he  made  it  his  policy 
to  conciliate  his  subjects.  §     If,  however,  such  was  his  disposition, 

*  Is.  44^*  ff  ■.  Duhm  and  Cheyne  omit  the  next  to  the  last  line  and  transfer  the  last  to  v.  ^, 
but  the  omission  of  the  fourth  line  of  that  verse  makes  any  further  pruning  unnecessary.  On 
the  minor  changes  in  the  te.\t,  cf.  Cheyne,  SBOT. 

t  KB.,  iii,  2,  134  /. 

t  KB.,  iii,  2,  126  /.;  Pinches,  OT.,  422. 

§  On  this  point  \6ldeke  has  some  remarks  that  are  well  worth  quoting.  He  says:  "If  in 
these  two  inscriptions  (the  Chronicle  and  Cyrus's  Cylinder)  Cyrus  appears  as  a  pious  worship- 
per of  the  Balnlonian  gods,  and  indeed,  according  to  the  Cylinder,  Merodach  himself  led  him 


6  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

there  is  in  this  fact  a  warrant  for  supix)sing  that,  unless  there  were 
reasons  for  a  diflferent  course,  he  favoured  the  return  of  the  Jews 
to  their  countrj'.  He  does  not  mention  them  among  the  bene- 
ficiaries of  his  clemency,  nor  is  there,  among  the  known  relics  of 
his  empire,  any  record  concerning  his  actual  treatment  of  them. 
The  only  direct  testimony  on  the  subject  is  found  in  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  and  works  based  on  them.*  The  Chronicler,  in  a 
passage  a  part  of  which  is  preserved  at  the  end  of  the  second  book 
of  Chronicles  and  the  whole  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  of  Ezra, 
recites  that,  in  the  first  year  after  assuming  the  government  of 
Babylonia,  Cyrus  issued  a  formal  proclamation  announcing  that 
"  Yahweh,  the  God  of  heaven,"  had  given  him  "all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  earth"  and  commissioned  him  "to  build  him  a  house  in 
Jerusalem";  summoning  the  Jews  who  were  moved  so  to  dof  to 
return  to  their  country  and  assist  in  the  project;  and  commanding 
the  neighbours  of  those  who  responded  to  the  call  to  provide  them 
with  "silver,  and  gold,  and  cattle,  together  with  a  freewill  offer- 
ing for  the  house  of  God  ...  in  Jerusalem."  The  author  adds 
(vv.  ^  ^■)  that  these  instructions  were  loyally  fulfilled,  and  that  a 
company  of  exiles  under  Sheshbazzar  "were  brought  up,"  with 
"the  vessels  of  the  house  of  Yahweh,"  "from  Babylon  to  Jerusa- 
lem." The  number  of  those  who  took  advantage  of  this  oppor- 
tunity to  return  to  Palestine  is  said  to  have  been  42,360,  besides 
their  servants  and  a  company  of  singers.     Cf.  Ezr.  2'^^-. 

The  release  of  the  Jews,  with  permission  to  rebuild  their  temple, 
is  so  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  the  policy  of  Cyrus  that  one  is 
disposed  to  accept  the  Chronicler's  account  without  question. 
When,  however,  one  examines  it  more  closely,  there  appear  rea- 

because  he  (Merodach)  was  angry  with  the  native  king  for  not  serving  him  properly,  sacerdotal 
diplomacy  of  this  sort  should  not  deceive  the  trained  historian.  The  priests  turned  to  the  ris- 
ing sun  without  regard  to  their  previous  relations  with  Nabonidus.  Cyrus  certainly  did  not 
suppress  the  Babylonian  religion,  as  the  Hebrew  prophets  expected;  the  splendour  of  the  ritual 
in  the  richest  city  in  the  world  probably  impressed  him.  When,  however,  the  priests  (by  whom 
the  inscriptions  were  prepared)  represent  him  as  an  adherent  of  the  Babylonian  religion,  tliat 
does  not  make  him  one,  any  more  than  Cambyses  and  some  of  the  Roman  emperors  are  made 
worshippers  of  the  Egyptian  gcxls  by  being  represented  on  some  of  the  monuments  of  the  land 
of  the  Nile  as  paying  them  due  reverence  just  like  Egyptian  kings."     A  PC,  22. 

*  I  Esd.  2,  Jos. ■*"'■,  xi,  I. 

t  There  is  no  such  modifying  clause  in  the  Mas.soretic  text  of  Ezr.  i',  but  it  is  easily  supplied 
from  v. '  and  must  be  restored  to  complete  the  meaning.     See  Guthe,  SBOT. 


CYRUS  7 

sons  for  more  or  less  skepticism.  Kosters,  as  the  result  of  his  in- 
vestigations, not  only  doubts  the  historicity  of  Cyrus's  decree,  but 
declares  that  "in  the  history  of  the  Restoration  of  Israel  this  re- 
turn must  take,  not  the  first,  but  the  third  place";  and  that  "the 
temple  was  built  and  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  restored  before  the 
exiles  returned  from  Babylonia."*  Meyer  is  less  radical,  but  he, 
while  he  contends  for  the  historicity  of  the  return  under  Cyrus, 
characterises  this  account  of  it  as  a  fabrication.!  There  are  sev- 
eral reasons  for  suspecting  its  authenticity:  i.  The  language  used 
in  the  decree  is  not  that  of  a  genuine  document  emanating  from 
the  king  of  Persia,  but  of  a  free  composition  from  the  hand  of  the 
Chronicler,  as  in  the  verses  describing  the  fulfilment  of  its  re- 
quirements. 

2.  The  thought  dominant  in  the  decree  does  not  properly  rep- 
resent Cyrus  as  he  appears  in  undoubtedly  genuine  contemporary 
records.  Thus,  at  the  very  beginning  he  is  made  to  call  Yahweh 
"the  God  of  heaven,"  and  claim  that  he  (Yahweh)  has  given  him 
"all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth";  which  amoimts  to  a  confession 
that  the  God  of  the  Jews  is  the  ruler  of  the  world  and  the  only 
true  God.  Now,  it  is  improbable  that  he  would  have  made  any 
such  announcement.  He  could  not  have  done  so  without  seri- 
ously offending  the  Babylonians.  Had  he  not,  in  the  inscription 
already  cited,  given  to  Marduk  the  title  "king  of  the  gods,"  and 
said  that  it  was  this  Babylonian  divinity  who  predestined  him  to 
"the  sovereignty  of  the  world" ?|  If,  therefore,  he  issued  a  de- 
cree permitting  the  return  of  the  Jews,  it  must  have  been  in  a  differ- 
ent form  from  that  which  has  been  preserved  by  the  Chronicler. 

3.  Those  who  deny  that  the  Jews  returned  to  Palestine,  in  any 
such  numbers  as  are  given  in  Ezr.  2,  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  chs.  5  and  6,  where  this  decree  is 
cited,  the  erection  of  the  temple  and  the  restoration  of  the  sacred 
vessels  are  the  only  matters  to  which  it  is  represented  as  referring. 

C/.  5"«-6^«-.§ 

4.  Although  the  document  reproduced  in  Ezr.  2,  vdth  its  vari- 
ous classes  and  precise  figures,  reads  Uke  a  transcript  from  a  de- 
tailed report  of  the  number  and  character  of  the  exiles  who  re- 

♦  WI.,  2.  t  EJ;  72,  49-  X  A'S..  iii,  2,  120  fi.  §  Kosters,  WI.,  26. 


8  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

turned  to  their  country  under  the  terms  of  the  decree  attributed 
to  Cyrus,  a  critical  examination  renders  this  view  untenable.  The 
reasons  for  a  different  opinion  are:  (a)  that  in  the  title  (Ezr.  2*) 
the  persons  enumerated  are  described  as  "children  of  the  prov- 
ince" who  "had  returned  to  Jerusalem  and  Judah,"  that  is,  were 
settled  in  the  country  when  the  census  was  made;  (b)  that  the  same 
document,  in  a  somewhat  earlier  form,  is  found  in  Ne.  7,  where 
(v. '')  it  is  called  "a  book  of  genealogy,"  that  is,  a  genealogical 
register;  (c)  that  the  phrase,  "of  them  that  came  up  at  the  first," 
here  found,  is  an  interpolation,*  and  the  list  of  leaders  in  both 
Ezr.  2  and  Ne.  7  also  evidently  an  afterthought  ;|  (d)  and  that,  if 
this  list  were  retained,  it  could  be  used  as  proof  of  a  great  return 
in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  only  on  the  mistaken  supposition  that 
Sheshbazzar  and  Zerubbabel  are  different  names  for  the  same 
person. J  These  considerations  oblige  one  to  confess  that  the 
document  in  question  was  not  intended  for  its  present  connec- 
tion, and  that  therefore  it  cannot  be  used  to  prove  that  any  great 
number  of  Jews,  by  permission  of  Cyrus,  returned  to  their  coun- 
try soon  after  the  capture  of  Babylon.  § 

5.  It  appears  from  Zc.  6'°  that  the  Jews  of  Babylonia  were  free 
to  return  to  Jerusalem  when  it  was  written,  but  neither  this  prophet 
nor  Haggai  betrays  any  knowledge  of  so  great  a  movement  as 
that  described  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Ezra.  In  fact,  Zc. 
jio/ofiF.^  where  Zion  is  exhorted  to  "flee"  from  Babylon,  indicates 
that  no  such  movement  had  taken  place  when  this  passage  was 
written.     Cf.  also  Zc.  6*=^  8'  ^■. 

These  are  the  most  serious  objections  to  the  Chronicler's  ac- 
count of  the  return  of  the  Jews  under  Cyrus.     They  do  not  lie 

♦  It  cannot  be  construed  with  the  preceding  context.     Cj.  Oulhe  SHOT. 

t  CI.  Guthe,  SBOT. 

X  This  view  was  formerly  common,  and  there  are  some  who  still  hold  it.  So  Ryle,  on  Ezr. 
■  i' ;  van  Hoonacker,  PP.,  543.  The  following  points,  however,  seem  conclusive  against  it:  (i) 
The  Chronicler,  who  alone  has  the  name  Sheshbazzar,  gives  his  reader  no  hint  that  it  is  in- 
tended to  designate  the  same  ix?rson  as  Zerubbabel.  (2)  In  Ezr.  5"  he  represents  the  lead- 
ers of  the  Jews  as  using  the  name  in  such  a  way  that  it  cannot  fairly  be  understocxi  as  a  desig- 
nation for  one  of  their  own  number.  (3)  If,  as  Meyer  (EJ.,  77)  and  others  claim,  the  Slienaz- 
zar  of  I  Ch.  3'*  is  Sheshbazzar,  the  author  must  be  reckoned  a  positive  witness  against  the  iden- 
tity of  the  person  so  called  with  ZerubbaWl.     Cj.  DB.,  art.  Sheshbazzar. 

§  In  I  Esd.  5  the  same  document  appears  as  a  part  of  an  account  of  a  return  with  Zerub- 
babel at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Darius. 


CYRUS  9 

against  a  less  spectacular  view  of  the  matter,  derived,  not  from 
the  prophecies  of  the  Second  Isaiah,*  but  from  more  nearly  con- 
temporary sources,  i.  In  the  first  place,  as  has  already  been  sug- 
gested, the  liberality  of  which  Cyrus  gives  evidence  in  his  memorial 
inscription  would  prompt  him  to  favour  the  return  of  the  Jews  to 
their  country.  2.  It  would  also  suit  his  plans  against  Egypt  to 
have  them  re-estabUsh  themselves  on  the  western  border  of  his 
empire  under  his  protection.  3.  Again,  the  decree  cited  in  Ezr. 
^13  ff.^  which  makes  the  impression  of  a  genuine  document,  al- 
though there  is  no  mention  of  the  release  of  the  captives,  implies 
that  they  were  by  the  same  instrument,  or  had  been  by  another, 
permitted  to  return  to  Palestine,  since  it  would  have  been  mockery 
to  order  the  restoration  of  the  temple  without  allowing  them  to  go 
to  worship  at  its  altar.  4.  Finally,  since  most,  if  not  quite  all, 
of  the  better  class  of  inhabitants  had  been  carried  into  captivity 
by  Nebuchadrezzar,  the  fact  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of 
Darius  there  were  princes  of  the  house  of  David  as  well  as  priests 
and  prophets  resident  at  Jerusalem  f  shows  that  a  royal  edict 
permitting  them  to  return  had  then  been  in  operation  for  some 
time.  Taking  these  factors  into  account,  and  remembering  that, 
according  to  Ezr.  6^,  the  record  of  the  alleged  decree  was  finally 
found  in  Ecbatana,  it  seems  safe  to  conclude  that,  after  setthng 
the  affairs  of  Babylonia,  the  king,  early  in  538  B.C.,  retired  to 
Ecbatana,  whence  he  issued  orders  releasing  the  Jews  from  cap- 
tivity and  instructing  Sheshbazzar  to  rebuild  their  temple  and  re- 
store its  sacred  vessels;  and  that  from  this  time  onward  they  could, 
and  did,  return,  as  they  were  moved  so  to  do,  to  their  native 
land.J 

The  Chronicler  does  not  say  when  the  Jews  started  from  Baby- 
lonia, or  when  they  arrived  in  Palestine;  but  in  Ezr.  3  he  informs 
the  reader  that,  "when  the  seventh  month  was  come,"  they  "were 
in  the  cities,"  and  that  on  the  first  of  the  month  Joshua  and  Zerub- 
babel  had  rebuilt  the  altar  at  Jerusalem,  so  that  they  could  offer 

*  Compare  the  phraseology  of  Ezr.  i'  "•  with  that  of  Is.  41-  and  44-'. 

t  Hg.  i'  2'  '•,  etc. 

t  CI.  Meyer,  EJ.,  47  '■  Andr^  (83  ff.)  supposes  two  distinct  expeditions  to  have  been  organ- 
ised, the  first  of  which  left  Babylonia  under  Sheshbazzar  soon  after  the  decree  was  issued,  the 
second  under  the  twelve  elders,  among  whom  were  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  somewhat  later. 


lO  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

the  daily  sacrifice  and  observe  the  feasts  in  their  seasons.  Now, 
there  is  nothing  surprising  in  this  statement,  so  far  as  its  main 
features,  the  restoration  of  the  altar  and  the  resumption  of  wor- 
ship, are  concerned,  but  some  of  its  details  seem  incredible.  In 
the  first  place,  note  that  Ezr.  3'  is  evidently  an  adaptation  of  Ne. 
7^^^  and  8*^,  while  the  date  for  the  resumption  of  worship  (v.  ") 
seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from  Ne.  8^.  Again,  observe  that 
Sheshbazzar,  at  this  time  governor  of  Judea,  who  had  been  com- 
missioned by  Cyrus  to  rebuild  the  temple,  and  who,  according  to 
Ezr.  5'",  actually  "laid  the  foundations  of  the  house  of  God,"  is 
not  mentioned  in  this  connection.  Finally,  consider  how  strange 
it  is  that  the  Jews  should  be  described  (v.  ^)  as  urged  by  the  fear 
of  "the  peoples  of  the  countries,"  although  they  must  have  had 
the  protection  of  the  governor  and  a  considerable  force  of  Persian 
soldiers.  These  discrepancies,  especially  in  view  of  the  phrase- 
ology employed,*  indicate  that  here,  again,  the  Chronicler  is  re- 
constructing history,  this  time  in  the  interest  of  his  favourites, 
Joshua  and  Zerubbabel,  the  truth  being  that  the  great  altar  was 
rebuilt  by  Sheshbazzar,  and  that  this  is  what  is  meant  by  ascrib- 
ing to  him  the  foundation  of  the  temple  in  Ezr.  5"^.! 

Ezr,  3,  from  v.  ^  onward,  is  devoted  to  a  description  of  the  lay- 
ing of  the  foundation  of  the  second  temple.  In  this  passage,  also, 
the  Chronicler  is  composing  freely,  aided  to  some  extent  by  ex- 
tant materials,  including  the  prophecies  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 
The  phraseology  is  his  J  and  the  content  is  characteristic.  The 
leader  in  this  case  is  Zerubbabel.  Had  not  Zechariah  (4")  said 
that  Zerubbabel  had  laid  the  foundation  of  the  house  ?  He  is  as- 
sisted, as  one  would  expect,  by  Jeshua  (Joshua),  son  of  Jehosadak, 
the  high  priest,  whom  the  prophets  named  associate  with  him. 
The  date  given  was  probably  suggested  by  that  of  the  actual 
foundation  in  the  prophecies  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  It  is  the 
second  year,  not,  however,  of  Darius,  but,  that  the  prophecy  of 
Is.  44^*  might  be  fulfilled,  of  Cyrus.     The  names  of  the  heads 

*  The  expressions  characteristic  of  the  style  of  the  Chronicler  are  the  following:  set  tip  and 
countries,  v. ' ;  each  day,  lit.,  day  with  day,  v.*  ;  villinsly  offered,  v. » ;  r/.  Driver,  LOTfi,  53s  ff. 

t  Cj.  Meyer,  EJ.,  44  /• 

X  Cj.  house  of  God  and  appoint,  v. ' ;  have  the  oversight,  vv.  *  '•;  ajler  the  order,  v. '" ;  praising 
and  giving  thanks,  v.  "  ;  further,  Driver,  LOT.',  434  ff. 


CYRUS  II 

of  the  Levites  (v.  ®)  were  taken  from  2*",*  the  author  overlooking 
the  fact  that,  on  his  own  interpretation,  it  was  not  the  persons 
bearing  these  names,  but  their  sons,  who  were  contemporaries  of 
Zerubbabel.  The  functions  of  the  Levites  are  the  same  here 
as  in  other  passages  in  which  the  Chronicler  deals  with  affairs  of 
the  temple.  Cf.  2  Ch.  24^-  "  34^-  ^^.  It  is  characteristic,  too,  for 
him  to  introduce  music  "after  the  order  of  David,"  whenever 
there  is  an  opportunity.  C/.  i  Ch.  \^^^-  2  Ch.  5"^-.t  His 
idea  seems  to  have  been  to  make  this  occasion  correspond  in  its 
significance  to  that  when  the  ark  was  brought  from  Kirjath- 
jearim  to  Jerusalem  by  Da\ad.  Cf.  i  Ch.  16.  Finally,  the 
Chronicler  describes  the  effect  produced  upon  "the  old  men  who 
had  seen  the  first  house"  when  the  foundation  of  the  new  one 
was  put  into  place :  the  cries  of  joy  and  sorrow  mingled  in  a  great 
and  indistinguishable  "noise."  This  is  a  clearly  an  enlargement 
upon  Hg.  2^.  The  whole  account,  then,  is  simply  the  product  of 
an  attempt  to  bring  the  facts  with  reference  to  the  restoration  of 
the  temple  into  harmony  with  an  unfulfilled  prediction  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  has  no  historic  value. 

The  prolepsis  just  noted  made  it  necessary  for  the  Chronicler 
to  explain  why  the  completion  of  the  temple  was  so  long  delayed. 
He  had  no  data  for  the  purpose,  but,  fortunately,  the  history  of 
the  restoration  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  suggested  a  means  by 
which  he  could  fill  the  embarrassing  interim.  Cf.  Ne.  3^^-/4*  ^• 
^iff./7ff.  ^1  fif.  j|.  ^g^g  ^^  "adversaries"  of  his  people,  he  says 
(Ezr.  4*  ^•),  who  hindered  the  work  begun  the  year  after  their  re- 
turn, just  as  they  afterward  did  that  of  Nehemiah.  Cf.  Ne. 
4'^/".  He  does  not  at  first  divulge  who  these  "adversaries"  are, 
but  finally  he  identifies  them  with  the  descendants  of  the  hea- 
then with  whom  the  king  of  Assyria,  here  Esarhaddon,  colonised 
northern  Palestine  after  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
Cf.  2  K.  17^ ^•.     It  was  they  who  "frightened"  the  Jews  "from 

*  For  Jiidah  read  Hoduyah.-  The  fourth  name,  Henedcd,  seems  to  be  a  later  addition  sug- 
gested by  Ne.  io">'». 

t  In  2  Ch.  3412,  where,  according  to  the  Massoretic  text,  the  repairs  on  the  temple  would  seem 
to  have  been  made  to  the  sound  of  trumpets  and  cymbals,  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  has  prob- 
ably been  added  by  a  thoughtless  scribe.  Cf.  Nowack,  who  thinks  the  latter  half  of  v.  "  also 
is  ungenuine. 


12  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

building,  and  hired  counsellors  against  them,  to  frustrate  their 
purpose,  all  the  days  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  even  to  the  reign 
of  Darius,  king  of  Persia."  The  animus  of  this  story  is  apparent. 
It  breathes  the  hatred  and  contempt  with  which  the  Jews  regarded 
their  northern  neighbours.  Its  unreality  is  equally  evident.  The 
request  put  into  the  mouth  of  these  "adversaries"  contradicts, 
not  only  the  term  applied  to  them,  but  all  that  is  known  with  ref- 
erence to  their  attitude  toward  the  Jews  and  their  sanctuary.* 
The  passage,  therefore,  does  not  add  to  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  preceding  account  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple. 

The  general  statement  of  Ezr.  4'^  might  have  sufticed  to  bridge 
the  interval  between  the  date  there  mentioned  and  that  at  which, 
according  to  the  Chronicler,  work  on  the  temple  was  resumed, 
namely,  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius.  The  author, 
however,  was  not  content  to  leave  his  readers  without  details. 
One  of  the  incidents  he  cites  is  barely  mentioned,  the  other  is 
given  in  extenso.  A  certain  Rehum  and  others,  of  Samaria,  it 
seems,  made  a  formal  complaint  against  the  Jews,  setting  forth 
that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  allow  them  to  proceed  with  the 
operations  in  which  they  were  engaged.  The  king,  after  an  in- 
vestigation, issued  the  desired  decree,  whereupon  Rehum  and  his 
companions  "went  in  haste  to  Jerusalem  unto  the  Jews,  and  made 
them  cease  by  force  and  power.  Then,"  says  the  writer,  "ceased 
the  work  of  the  house  of  God  which  is  at  Jerusalem;  and  it  ceased 
until  the  second  year  of  Darius,  king  of  Persia."  Cf.  Ezr.  4^  ^•. 
The  natural  inference  from  the  last  clause  is  that  both  incidents 
were  obstacles  to  the  completion  of  the  sanctuary,  and  that  both 
occurred  before  the  reign  of  Darius.  This,  however,  is  not  the 
case;  for  it  is  clear  from  vv.  *^^-  that  it  was  the  rebuilding  of  the 
city  and  its  wall  against  which  the  Samaritans  protested,  and  it  is 
expressly  stated  that  the  first  complaint  was  made  in  the  reign  of 
Xerxes,  the  son  of  Darius,  and  the  second  in  that  of  Artaxerxes, 


*  C/.  Meyer,  GA.,  iii,  191  /.  There  is  a  similar  case  in  Ne.  2^,  where  the  Chronicler  would 
lead  one  to  infer  that  the  Samaritans  had  offered  to  assist  Nehemiah  in  his  work;  whereas,  from 
documents  recently  discovered,  it  is  clear  that,  so  far  from  recognising  the  pretensions  of  the 
Jerusalemites,  they  favoured  local  sanctuaries,  and  recommended  the  restoration  of  the  one  at 
Elephantine.  C/.  Sachau,  Report  0/  the  Smithsonian  Institution  jor  1907,  603  fj.;  Lagrange, 
ia  Revue  BiHique,  1908,  iis  ff. 


CYRUS  13 

his  grandson.  In  other  words,  the  Chronicler,  for  the  purpose  of 
enriching  his  narrative,  here  introduces  incidents  that  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  temple,  and  happened,  if  they  are  authentic,  many- 
years  after  it  was  completed.  They  may  be  of  value  for  the  period 
to  which  they  belong,  but  they  have  no  place  in  an  introduction 
to  the  prophecies  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah.* 

The  Chronicler,  then,  has  no  reliable  information  concerning 
the  Jews,  or  their  condition  and  relations,  for  the  ])eriod  from  the 
first  year  after  the  fall  of  Babylon  to  the  second  of  the  reign  of 
Darius.  The  annals  of  Persia  are  almost  as  completely  silent 
with  reference  to  them  and  their  country.  Their  neighbours  gen- 
erally, as  vassals  of  Babylon,  had  promptly  submitted  to  Cyrus. 
Gaza,  probably  at  the  instigation  of  the  king  of  Egypt,  hesitated; 
but  it,  like  the  Phoenician  cities,  finally  accepted  the  new  order.f 
A  show  of  force  may  have  been  necessary,  but  soon,  so  far  as  Pal- 
estine was  concerned,  the  king  was  free  to  devote  his  energies  to 
a  war  with  the  Scythians  by  which,  although  it  cost  him  his  Hfe, 
he  greatly  extended  and  firmly  established,  in  the  north  and  east, 
the  boundaries  of  his  empire. 

The  death  of  Cyrus  took  place  in  530  or  529  B.C. J  By  this 
time  a  considerable  number  of  Jews  must  have  returned  to  Pales- 


*  A  suggestion  with  reference  to  the  text  of  Ezr.  4^-"',  however,  may  not  be  out  of  order.  It 
is  that,  in  vv.  '  ^■,  the  author  is  reporting  the  transmission  by  a  higher  Persian  official  of  the 
substance  of  a  letter  received  from  a  subordinate.  The  interpretation  will  then  be  as  follows: 
In  V. '  the  author  says  that,  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxcs,  Mithredath  (Mithridates),  originally  the 
only  person  named,  wrote  a  despatch  to  the  king,  of  which  there  was  an  Aramaic  translation. 
In  V.  *  he  gives  the  words  with  which  Mithredath  introduces  the  matter  of  the  letter:  "  Rehum, 
the  commandant,  and  Shimshai,  the  scribe,  have  written  this  letter  against  Jerusalem  to  Arta- 
xerses  the  king,  to  wit."  Then  (v.  ')  follows  the  list  of  complainants  with  which  the  letter  be- 
gan: "Rehum,  the  commandant,  and  Shimshai,  the  scribe,  and  the  rest  of  their  associates," 
etc.  ".^nd  now,"  says  Mithredath  (v.  'i),  by  way  of  introduction  to  the  letter  proper,  "this 
is  the  copy  of  the  letter  that  thy  ser\'ants.  the  men  beyond  the  River,  have  sent  to  .^Vrtaxer-xes 
the  king";  and  he  gives  his  master  the  contents  of  the  letter.  It  appears  from  v.  "  that  Rehum 
was  an  official  resident  at  Samaria.  Mithredath,  therefore,  was  probably  the  incumbent  of  the 
fifth  satrapy,  which  included  Palestine.  According  to  Meyer  his  residence  was  at  Aleppo. 
CI.  GA.,  ii,  137. 

t  Noldeke,  A  PC,  23;  PraSek,  GAfP.,  i,  232  /.,  23s. 

t  The  latter  is  the  date  usually  given.  So  Wiedemann,  GA.,  224/.;  Noldeke,  .APG.,  26. 
The  Ptolemaic  Canon,  however,  places  his  death  in  530,  and  the  contract  tablets  of  the  latter 
part  of  that  year  bear  the  name  of  his  successor.  Cj.  Prasek,  CMP.,  200,  246  /.  It  is  proba- 
ble, however,  that,  when  Cyrus  started  on  his  unhappy  expedition  against  the  Massagetae,  he 
placed  the  regal  authority  in  the  hands  of  Cambyses,  who  thus  began  to  reign  some  months 
before  his  father's  death.     C/.  Herodotus,  i,  208;  vii,  41  PraSck,  CMP.,  i,  242. 


14  HISTORICAL  BACKGROUND 

tine.  Their  condition  was  not  an  enviable  one.  Of  this  one  can 
assure  one's  self  without  the  help  of  the  Chronicler.  In  the  first 
place,  even  if  the  great  altar  had  been  rebuilt,  it  cannot  but  have 
emphasised  the  desolation  by  which  it  was  surrounded.  More- 
over, those  who  lived  at  Jerusalem  were  constantly  reminded  by 
the  prostrate  walls  of  the  present  weakness  as  well  as  the  former 
strength  of  their  city.  Finally,  some  of  the  returned  exiles  were 
suflfering  actual  want;  for,  according  to  Hg.  2'"/.,  when  the  temple 
was  founded,  it  had  been  a  long  time  since  there  was  a  normal 
harvest.  Zechariah  (8'")  bears  similar  testimony,  referring  also  to 
the  constant  annoyance  his  ]:)eople  had  suffered  from  hostile  neigh- 
bours. The  discouragement  that  these  hard  conditions  would  nat- 
urally engender  had  doubtless  found  frequent  expression.  Per- 
haps, as  some  scholars  incline  to  believe,*  Is.  63/.  are  among  the 
literary  products  of  the  period.  At  any  rate,  the  sufferers  could 
hardly  have  put  their  complaint  into  more  fitting  or  forceful 
language.  The  following  lines  from  ch.  64  are  especially  appro- 
priate : 

8/'.  "  Be  not,  Yahweh,  very  wroth. 

nor  remember  iniquity  forever: 
"Look,  see,  I  pray  thee, 
we  are  all  thy  people. 
o/io_  "Thy  holy  cities  have  become  a  desert; 
Zion  hath  become  a  desert, 
Jerusalem  a  waste, 
to/u.  "Our  holy  and  beautiful  house, 
where  our  fathers  praised  thcc, 
hath  been  burned  with  fire, 
".\nd  all  that  was  precious  to  us 
hath  become  a  ruin. 
"/'=.  "And  wilt  thou  still  restrain  thyself,  Vahwch? 
be  quiet?   nay,  greatly  afSict  us?  f 


§    2.  CAMBYSES. 

The  successor  of  Cyrus  on  the  throne  of  Persia  was  Cambyses. 
His  chief  exploit  was  the  conquest  of  Egypt.     It  is  probable  that 

*  BIcek.  Einl..  346. 

t  Baethgen,  with  more  or  less  confidence,  refers  to  this  period  the  following  Psalms  :  16,  41, 
56,  57,  59.  64,  79,  85,  120,  123,  124,  125,  127,  131  and  137. 


CAMBYSES  15 

Cyrus  had  planned  the  subjugation  of  this  country,  and  that,  at 
his  death,  he  had  bequeathed  to  his  son  the  duty  of  punishing 
Ahmes  for  joining  Croesus  and  Nabonidus  in  a  league  against  him. 
A  second  reason  for  undertaking  this  enterprise  was  that  the  king 
of  Egypt  had  shown  a  good  degree  of  vigour  and  prudence  in  the 
recent  past.  He  had  compelled  the  island  of  Cyprus  to  pay  him 
tribute,*  and  contracted  an  alliance  with  the  Greeks  of  Cyrenef 
and  Polycrates  the  tyrant  of  Samos,J  thus  threatening  Persian 
dominance  in  Asia  Minor.  Finally,  there  was  the  Achaemenid  lust 
for  dominion,  which  only  the  conquest  of  the  world  could  satisfy. 

The  immediate  cause  of  the  breach  between  the  two  powers  is 
unknown.  §  Whatever  it  may  have  been,  it  must  have  arisen  early 
in  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  for  by  526  B.C.  he  was  ready  for  the  con- 
flict.** In  that  year  he  set  in  motion  his  army,  which,  as  it  neared 
Egypt,  was  supported  by  a  fleet  of  Greek,  Cyprian,  and  Phoe- 
nician vessels  that  had  been  collected  at  Akka. 

The  Jews  must  have  been  deeply  interested  in  this  expedition, 
and  equally  impressed  by  its  magnitude,  as  it  passed  through 
Palestine.  If  any  of  them  were  disposed  to  disparage  its  strength, 
they  were  speedily  disillusioned,  for  at  Pelusium  Cambyses  routed 
the  Egyptian  army,  and  shortly  afterward,  at  Memphis,  he  cap- 
tured Psammeticus  III,  the  son  and  successor  of  Ahmes,  thus 
completing  the  conquest  of  the  country.ff 

There  is  wide  disagreement  among  the  authorities  with  refer- 
ence to  the  treatment  of  the  Egyptians  and  their  religion  by  the 
conqueror.  A  nearly  contemporary  record,  the  inscription  on  the 
statue  of  Uzahor,  says  that,  when  Cambyses  had  established  him- 
self in  Egypt,  he  took  an  Egyptian  praenomen,  Mesut-ra,  received 
instruction  in  the  religion  of  the  country,  recognised  the  goddess 
Neit  by  purging  her  temple,  restoring  its  revenues  and  worship- 

*  Herodotus,  ii,  126.  t  Herodotus,  ii,  181.  t  Herodotus,  iii,  39  ff. 

§  For  the  stories  with  reference  to  the  subject  current  in  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  c}.  Herodotus, 
iii,  I  ff- 

**  PrdSek,  GMP.,  i,  252.  There  is  difference  of  opinion  with  reference  to  the  date.  Brugsch 
(.Hist.,  ii,  312  if.)  insists  that  the  invasion  of  Egypt  took  place  in  527  B.C.,  but  Wiedemann  (GA., 
226  ff.)  seems  to  have  shown  that  he  misread  Serapeum  354,  the  inscription  on  which  his  con- 
clusion was  based.  Petrie,  HE.,  iii,  360,  supports  Wiedemann.  Duncker's  (HA.,  vi,  145) 
date  is  525  B.C. 

tt  Herodotus,  iii,  10  ff. 


l6  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

ping  at  the  renovated  sanctuary,  and  finally  made  offerings  to  all 
the  other  gods  that  had  shrines  at  Sais.*  The  story  told  by  Herod- 
otus is  very  different.  He  pictures  Cambyses  as  torturing  Psam- 
meticus  by  cruelty  to  his  children,  abusing  the  mummy  of  the  de- 
throned king's  father,  fatally  wounding  the  bull  in  which  Apis 
had  recently  manifested  himself  and  making  sport  of  the  images 
in  the  temple  of  Ptah,  the  tutelar  divinity  of  Memphis. f  The 
truth  seems  to  be  that  at  first  he  was  disposed  to  respect  the  cus- 
toms and  prejudices  of  the  conquered  people,  but  that,  after  his 
return  from  his  disastrous  expedition  against  Ethiopia,  he  treated 
them  and  their  gods  as  if  they  were  responsible  for  its  failure. 
Then,  according  to  Uzahor,  there  happened  "a  very  great  calam- 
ity" affecting  "the  whole  land,"  during  which  he  (Uzahor)  "pro- 
tected the  feeble  against  the  mighty."  He  adds, — and  this  state- 
ment shows  that  the  religious  interests  of  the  country  had  thereby 
suffered  seriously, — that,  on  the  accession  of  Darius,  he  was  com- 
missioned "to  restore  the  names  of  the  gods,  their  temples,  their 
endowments  and  the  arrangement  of  their  feasts  forever. "J 

The  reign  of  Cambyses  was  not  so  unfortunate  for  the  Jews. 
He  seems  to  have  continued  toward  them  the  policy  adopted  by 
his  father,  a  policy  which  was  prudent  as  well  as  liberal,  in  \iew 
of  his  designs  against  Egypt.  When  he  had  conquered  that  coun- 
try he  gave  proof  of  his  favour  by  sparing  their  temple  at  Elephan- 
tine. §  If,  however,  they  were  cherishing  dreams  of  independence 
suggested  by  the  earlier  prophets,  his  reputation  for  jealousy  and 
cruelty  must  have  chilled  their  ardour  and  deterred  them  from 
activities  that  could  be  interpreted  to  their  disadvantage.  More- 
over, being  on  the  route  by  which  the  Persian  army  entered  Egypt, 
and  by  which  it  had  to  be  re-enforced,  they  must  more  than  once 
have  been  obliged  to  meet  requisitions  that  sorely  taxed  their 
slender  resources.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  there  is  no 
evidence,  in  the  Scriptures  or  elsewhere,  that,  during  the  reign  of 

*  Petric,  HE.,  iii,  360  fj. 

t  Herodotus,  iii,  14  i].,  27  #.,  37. 

X  Cj.  Petric,  HE.,  iii,  362.  Jcdoniah,  in  his  letter  to  Bagoses,  says  that  "the  temples  of 
the  gods  of  Egypt  were  all  overthrown"  by  Cambyses.  Report  oj  Sniilhsonian  Inslilulion, 
1807,  603  ^.;  Revue  Biblique,  1908,  325  fj. 

§  Report  oj  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  1907,  603  fj.;  Rei-ue  Biblique,  1908,  32s  ff- 


DARIUS   I,   HYSTASPES  1 7 

Cambyses,  they  made  any  attempt  to  complete  the  temple  or  even  to 
put  their  city  into  a  defensible  condition.  If  there  are  any  psalms 
or  other  literar}^  remains  of  the  period  in  the  Old  Testament,  they 
cannot,  for  obvious  reasons,  be  distinguished  from  those  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus. 

The  reckless  ways  of  Cambyses  in  Eygpt  made  the  name  of 
Persia  hated  in  that  country.  The  murder  of  his  o^^^l  brother, 
Bardes,  which  he  had  hitherto  succeeded  in  concealing,  now  bore 
fruit  in  the  alienation  of  his  own  people  by  the  impostor  Gomates, 
who  seized  the  throne  of  Persia  and  proclaimed  himself  the  miss- 
ing son  of  Cyrus.  When  the  news  reached  Egypt  the  king,  al- 
though he  at  first  shrank  from  a  contest  in  which  success,  however 
he  achieved  it,  meant  lasting  infamy,  at  length,  by  the  urgent  ad- 
vice of  his  coimsellors,  put  himself  at  the  head  of  his  army  and 
started  for  Persia.  When  he  reached  Syria,  however,  his  cour- 
age failed  him,  and,  calling  together  the  nobles  who  attended  him, 
he  first  confessed  the  assassination  of  Bardes  and  appealed  to 
them  to  dethrone  the  usurper,  and  then  committed  suicide.* 
Thus,  the  Jews  must  have  been  among  the  first  to  learn  of  an  event 
of  the  greatest  significance  for  them  and  their  interests. 


§  3.      DARIUS  I,  HYSTASPES. 

Cambyses,  who  had  no  son,  was  finally  succeeded  by  Darius 
Hystaspes,  representing  a  collateral  branch  of  the  Achgemenids. 
Tlie  story  of  the  method  by  which  he  obtained  the  crown,  as  given 
by  Herodotus,!  is  full  of  romantic  details.  The  new  king  him- 
self, in  the  inscription  akeady  cited,  gives  this  concise  and  simple 
account  of  the  matter: 

"There  was  not  a  man,  either  Persian  or  Median,  or  any  one  of  our  family, 
who  could  dispossess  of  the  empire  this  Gomates,  the  Magian.  The  State 
feared  him  exceedingly.  He  slew  many  p>eople  who  had  known  the  old 
Bardes;  for  this  reason  he  slew  the  people,  lest  they  should  recognise  him  as 

*  The  statement  of  Herodotus  {Hist.,  iii,  64),  that  the  death  of  the  king  was  accidental,  is 
contradicted  by  the  Behistun  inscription,  in  which  Darius  says  expressly  that  "Cambyses, 
killing  himself,  died."     RP.-,  i,  114. 

t  Hist.,  iii,  71  if. 


l8  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

not  being  Bardcs,  the  son  of  C3TUS.  There  was  not  any  one  bold  enough  to 
say  aught  against  Gomates,  the  Magian,  until  I  arrived.  Then  I  prayed  to 
Ormazd.  Ormazd  brought  help  to  me.  On  the  tenth  day  of  the  month 
Ragayadish,  then  it  was  that  I  slew  this  Gomates,  the  Magian,  and  the  chief 
men  who  were  his  followers.  At  the  fort  named  Sictachotes,  in  the  district 
of  Media  called  Nisaa,  there  I  slew  him.  I  dispossessed  him  of  the  empire. 
By  the  grace  of  Ormazd  I  became  king.     Ormazd  granted  me  the  sceptre." 

It  was  one  thing  to  dispose  of  Gomates,  and  quite  another,  as 
Darius  soon  discovered,  to  get  possession  of  the  power  that  Cam- 
byses  had  wielded.  One  after  another  the  principal  provinces 
rebelled,  until  the  whole  of  the  eastern  half  of  the  empire,  under 
various  leaders,  was  in  arms  against  him.  The  following  is  his 
catalogue  of  the  insurgents  he  had  to  suppress  before  he  could 
call  himself,  as  he  does  at  the  beginning  of  this  Behistun  inscrip- 
tion,* "the  great  king,  the  king  of  kings,  the  king  of  Persia,  the 
king  of  the  provinces": 

"One  was  named  Gomates,  the  Magian.  He  was  an  impostor;  he  said, 
I  am  Bardes,  the  son  of  Cyrus.     He  threw  Persia  into  revolt. 

"One,  an  impostor,  was  named  Atrines,  a  Susian.  He  thus  said,  I  am  the 
king  of  Susiana.     He  caused  Susiana  to  revolt  against  me. 

"One  was  named  Nadinta-belus,  a  native  of  Babylon.  He  was  an  im- 
postor. He  thus  said,  I  am  Nabochodrossor,  the  son  of  Nabonidus.  He 
caused  Babylon  to  revolt. 

"One  was  an  impostor  named  Martes,  a  Persian.  He  thus  said,  I  am 
Imanes,  the  king  of  Susiana.     He  threw  Susiana  into  rebellion. 

"One  was  named  Phraortes,  a  Median.  He  spake  lies.  He  thus  said,  I 
am  Xathrites,  of  the  race  of  Cyaxarcs.     He  persuaded  Media  to  revolt. 

"One  was  an  impostor  named  Sitratachmes,  a  native  of  Sagartia.  He 
thus  said,  I  am  the  king  of  Sagartia,  of  the  race  of  Cya.\ares.  He  caused 
Sagartia  to  revolt. 

"One  was  an  impostor  named  Phraates,  a  Margian.  He  thus  said,  I  am 
the  king  of  Margiana.     He  threw  Margiana  into  revolt. 

"One  was  an  impostor  named  Vcisdates,  a  Persian.  He  thus  said,  I  am 
Bardes,  the  son  of  Cyrus.     He  headed  a  rebellion  in  Persia. 

"One  was  an  impostor  named  Aracus,  a  native  of  Armenia.  He  thus  said, 
I  am  Nabochodrossor,  the  son  of  Nabonidus.    He  threw  Babylon  into  revolt." 

The  courage  and  vigour  that  Darius  brought  to  his  herculean 
task  are  amazing;  yet  these  essential  qualities  would  hardly  have 
availed  him,  had  he  not  been  loyally  supported  by  several  able 
generals,  among  whom  was  his  own  father,  Hystaspes.     He  him- 

*  RF.\  i,  126. 


DARIUS   I,   HYSTASPES  I9 

self,  hanng  apprehended  and  punished  Atrines  for  claiming  the 
crown  of  Susiana,  turned  his  attention  to  Babylonia,  where,  after 
fighting  two  battles,  he  took  the  capital  and  put  to  death  the  im- 
postor, Nadinta-belus.  While  he  was  thus  engaged  the  rest  of  the 
provinces  revolted.  As  soon  as  he  was  free  to  do  so  he  hurried  to 
Media  to  assist  Hydarnes  against  Phraortes,  whom  he  overthrew 
in  battle  and  finally  executed.  While  here  he  sent  a  force  into 
Sagartia  under  one  of  his  generals,  who  defeated  Sitratachmes,  the 
usurping  king,  and  brought  him  back  a  prisoner.  Meanwhile, 
with  some  assistance  from  him,  Armenia  had  been  subdued  and 
Hystaspes  had  restored  order  in  Parthia  and  Hyrcania.  The 
satrap  of  Bactria  had  also  suppressed  the  uprising  in  Margiana. 
Finally,  Darius  himself  saw  the  end  of  the  second  in  Persia  and 
Arachotia,  while  Intaphernes  was  subduing  the  second  in  Baby- 
lonia.* 

The  above  outline,  which  is  intended  merely  to  indicate  the 
probable  order  of  the  events  mentioned,  might  convey  an  errone- 
ous impression  with  reference  to  the  duration  of  the  struggle  be- 
tween Darius  and  his  adversaries.  It  really  lasted  about  three 
years.  There  ought  to  be  no  difficulty,  with  the  data  given,  to 
construct  a  chronology  of  his  xictories;  but,  unfortunately,  although 
he  gives  the  month  and  the  day  of  the  month  in  almost  every  case, 
he  does  not  mention  the  year  to  which  these  belong,  or  arrange  his 
narrative  so  that  the  omission  can  always  be  supplied.  Still,  it  is 
possible,  with  the  help  of  Babylonian  tablets  belonging  to  the  pe- 
riod, to  determine  approximately  a  number  of  important  dates. 
Thus,  the  impostor  Gomates  must  have  set  up  his  claim  to  the 
throne  of  Persia  in  the  spring  of  522  B.c.f  The  death  of  Cam- 
byses  occurred  late  in  the  summer  of  the  same  year.  J  In  the 
following  autumn  Gomates  was  overthrown  by  Darius,  §  who  be- 


*  RP."-,  i,  116  #.;  Noldeke,  APC,  31  /. 

t  The  time  of  year  is  determined  by  a  tablet  dated  in  "  Aim  [April-May],  the  year  of  the  be- 
ginning of  the  reign  of  Bardes,  king  of  Babylon,  king  of  the  lands."  KB.,  iv,  294  /.  The  year 
can  hardly  have  been  523  B.C.,  as  Prasek  (GMP.,  i,  266)  asserts,  since  Cambyses  must  have  been 
informed  of  the  event  within  a  few  weeks  after  it  occurred,  and  must  have  taken  steps  to  meet 
the  usurper  very  soon  after  the  receipt  of  such  information.  He  did  not,  however,  according 
to  PraSek  himself  (GMP.,  i,  267)  leave  Egypt  until  the  spring  of  522  B.C.  This,  therefore,  was 
probably  the  year  of  the  beginning  of  Gomates's  usurpation. 

t  PraSek,  GMP.,  i,  275.  §  PrdSek,  GMP.,  i,  282. 


20  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

gan  his  reign  before  the  middle  of  March,  521  b.c*  Toward  the 
end  of  this  year  occurred  the  first  revolt  in  Babylon,  which  prob- 
ably occupied  him  until  the  summer  of  520  B.c.,t  when  he  went 
to  Media  to  finish  the  subjugation  of  that  and  the  adjoining  prov- 
inces. The  second  revolt  of  the  Babylonians,  which  seems  to 
have  been  the  latest  of  these  protests  against  the  authority  of 
Darius,  was  probably  not  suppressed  before  519  b.c.J 

If  Cambyses  died  in  the  summer  of  522  B.C.  and  Gomates  was 
overthrown  before  the  end  of  the  year,  the  first  full  year  of  the 
reign  of  Darius  began  with  Nisan  (March-April)  521  B.C.,  and  the 
second  with  the  same  month  in  520,  before  he  had  taken  Baby- 
lon the  first  time.  Now,  "the  second  year  of  Darius  the  king," 
"the  sixth  month,"  and  "the  first  day  of  the  month,"  or  about  the 
middle  of  August,  is  the  date  on  which  Haggai  approached  Zerub- 
babel  and  Joshua,  the  then  leaders  in  Jerusalem,  with  a  message 
from  Yahweh  requiring  them  to  rebuild  the  temple,  and  it  was 
only  a  few  days  later  that  the  work  was  actually  begun.  Cf. 
Hg.  I*-  *^.  In  other  words,  the  movement  among  the  Jews  to 
rebuild  the  temple  took  place  just  when  the  latest  news  from  the 
East  seemed  to  warrant  them  in  expecting  the  speedy  collapse  of 
the  Persian  empire.  This  can  hardly  have  been  a  mere  coinci- 
dence. It  means  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  policy  of 
Cyrus,  that  of  his  successor  had  been  more  or  less  repressive,  and 
that  the  Jews,  who,  ha\ang  one  of  their  oww.  race  for  governor, 
had  now  begun  to  think  of  autonomy,  took  the  first  favourable 
opportunity  to  provide  a  rallying-point  for  patriotic  sentiment  in 
the  growing  community. 

There  is  no  intimation  in  the  prophecies  of  Haggai  or  Zecha- 
riah  that  the  project  they  were  urging  met  with  any  opposition 
from  the  Persian  government.  The  Chronicler  does  not  claim 
that  anything  was  done  to  hinder  it,  but  he  says  that  the  Jews  had 


*  This  sUtement  is  based  on  a  tablet  dated  the  ^venty-second  of  Adar  (February-March) 
in  "the  beginning"  of  his  reign.     KB.,  iv,  302  /. 

t  According  to  Herodotus  (iii,  152),  the  siege  of  the  city  lasted  a  year  and  seven 
months. 

X  So  Meyer,  GA.,  i,  613  i\.  Duncker,  following  Herodotus,  prolongs  the  first  Babylonian 
revolt  until  the  autumn  of  519  B.C.,  making  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  second  was  not 
suppressed  until  517  B.C.     C/.  H.I.,  vi,  230  ^.,  240  ^.,  270  ff. 


DARIUS   I,    HYSTASPES  21 

no  sooner  begun  work  than  Tattenai,  the  governor  of  the  satrapy 
west  of  the  Euphrates,  and  certain  others,  appeared  and  inquired 
who  had  given  them  authority  to  rebuild  the  sanctuary.*  They 
replied  that  Cyrus  had  done  so  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  and 
that  Sheshbazzar  had  actually  laid  the  foundations  of  the  build- 
ing at  that  time.  Cf.  Ezr.  5"-  '^.  Thereupon  the  governor  re- 
ported to  the  king,  asking  that  an  examination  be  made  to  ascer- 
tain whether  such  a  decree  had  ever  been  issued.  Cf.  Ezr.  5^^. 
The  result  was  that  a  record  to  this  effect  was  found  at  Ecbatana, 
and  the  governor  was  instructed  not  to  interfere  with  the  Jews  in 
their  work,  but  rather  to  assist  them  from  the  revenues  of  his  dis- 
trict, that  they  might  "offer  sacrifices  of  sweet  savour  to  the  God 
of  heaven,  and  pray  for  the  life  of  the  king  and  his  sons."  CJ. 
Ezr.  6^ff-. 

The  authenticity  of  this  account  has  been  disputed  by  Well- 
hausen,  but  the  tendency,  even  among  the  more  radical  authori- 
ties, is  to  admit  that,  whether  the  Chronicler,  to  whom  it  owes  its 
present  form,  composed  (Schrader),  compiled  (Kosters)  or  only 
edited  (Kuenen)  it,  it  contains  more  or  less  material  of  a  genu- 
inely historical  character.  This  opinion  is  favoured  by  the  fol- 
lowing considerations: 

1.  The  general  impression  made  by  the  story,  as  compared, 
for  example,  with  i^  ^•,  4^^-  or  6'®^-,  is  that  it  is  temperate  and 
plausible. 

2.  The  consideration  shown  the  Jews,  first  by  the  governor,  and 
then  by  the  king,  is  in  harmony  with  the  demands  of  the  historical 
situation.  The  whole  East  had  revolted  against  Darius;  but  as 
yet  there  had  been  no  trouble  in  the  western  part  of  the  empire, 
and  it  was  very  desirable  that  this  state  of  things  should  continue. 
That  the  king  realised  this  is  clear  from  his  treatment  of  the  case 
of  Oroetes,  the  satrap  of  Lydia,  who  was  not  removed,  although 
he  was  kno^vn  to  be  secretly  disloyal,  until  the  eastern  provinces 
had  been  reduced  to  submission.!    Probably  Tattenai  had  re- 

*  Ezr.  5'.  The  text  adds  a  clause  rendered  (after  &  QJ)  in  RV.  "and  to  finish  this  wall"; 
but  the  vocalisation  of  N'J^U'N  indicates  that  the  Jews  read  N'w't*,  joiindalums,  as  in  v.  '8. 
Haupt  (5BOr.)  regards  it  as  the  Aramaic  form  of  a.^ni,  an  Assyrian  word  for  sanctuary.  If 
RV.  is  correct,  the  wliole  clause  is  probably  an  accretion. 

t  Herodotus,  iii,  uo  ij. 


22  HISTORICAL   BACKGROUND 

ceived  instructions  to  keep  a  close  watch  upon  his  district,  but  not 
to  create  unnecessary  friction.  When  the  case  came  before  Darius, 
he  would  naturally  make  it  a  point  to  honour  a  decree  of  his  great 
predecessor,  knowing  that,  once  firmly  seated  upon  his  throne,  he 
could  easily  check  any  abuse  of  his  liberality  by  the  Jews  of  Jeru- 
salem. 

3.  The  mention  of  Sheshbazzar  (5^®)  is  significant.  It  shows 
that  the  Chronicler,  when  he  introduced  it,  was  borrowing  from  an 
older  source,  a  source  from  which,  in  ch.  3,  he  found  reason  for 
diflfering,  and  in  which,  on  this  account,  the  reader  should  have 
the  greater  confidence. 

4.  When  the  Jews  began  work  on  the  temple.  Media  was  in  re- 
bellion; but,  by  the  time  the  report  of  Tattenai  reached  Darius, 
he  had  regained  control  of  the  province,  including  Ecbatana, 
where  the  edict  of  Cyrus  was  finally  discovered.     Cf.  Ezr.  6^. 

5.  There  are  certain  features  of  the  rescript  in  reply  to  Tatte- 
nai (Ezr.  6*'^-)  that  speak  for  its  genuineness.  Thus,  the  request 
for  an  interest  in  the  prayers  of  the  worshippers  of  Yahweh  (v.  *°) 
reminds  one  of  Cyrus's  appeal  to  the  gods  that  he  had  restored  to 
their  shrines  to  intercede  for  him  and  Cambyses  with  Bel  and 
Nebo;*  while  the  warning  against  tampering  with  the  decree 
(v.  ")  has  a  parallel  in  the  conclusion  of  the  Behistun  inscription 
where  Darius  himself  says: 

"If,  seeing  this  tablet  and  these  figures,  thou  shalt  injure  them, 
and  shalt  not  preserve  them  as  long  as  thy  seed  endures,  then  may 
Ormazd  be  thy  enemy,  and  mayest  thou  be  childless,  and  that 
which  thou  mayest  do  may  Ormazd  curse  for  thee." 

The  curse  in  v.  ^^,  however,  is  justly  suspected  of  being  an  inter- 
polation, f 

It  must  have  taken  some  time,  several  months,  for  Tattenai  to 
get  his  instructions.  Meanwhile  the  Jews  proceeded  \\A\h  their 
work.  At  first  they  wrought  with  feverish,  fanatical  energy.  On 
the  twenty-fourth  of  the  ninth  month  (December,  520  B.C.),  the 
enthusiasm  seems  to  have  reached  its  height.  This  is  the  date 
on  which  Haggai  prophesied  the  destruction  of  "the  strength  of 
the  kingdoms  of  the  nations."     CJ.  3".     Later  the  work  began 

*  KB.,  iii,  2,  126  /.  t  Meyer,  EJ .,  51. 


DARIUS   I,   HYSTASPES  23 

to  drag.  At  any  rate,  Zechariah,  in  4^  ^-  of  his  prophecies,  pic- 
tures the  task  before  Zerubbabel  and  his  associates  as  a  "moun- 
tain." If  they  finally  received  any  assistance  from  the  govern- 
ment, it  must  have  been  delayed  many  months,  as  such  grants 
are  apt  to  be,  for,  according  to  the  Chronicler  (Ezr.6*^),  the  temple 
was  not  completed  until  the  third  of  Adar  in  the  sixth  year  of 
Darius,  or  February,  515  B.C. 

For  some  time  after  the  suppression  of  the  great  uprising  in 
the  East  Darius  was  employed  in  strengthening  his  hold  on  his 
vast  dominions.  To  this  end  he  removed  ambitious  satraps,  like 
Oroetes,  occupied  strategic  points  in  India  and  Asia  Minor  and 
thoroughly  reorganised  the  empire.  In  the  course  of  these  activ- 
ities he  had  to  devote  some  attention  to  Egypt,  where  Aryandes, 
an  appointee  of  Cambyses,  was  usurping  royal  functions  and  pro- 
voking disorder.  Perhaps  he  had  already  sent  Uzahor,  an  official 
already  (p.  1 5)  mentioned,  to  repair  some  of  the  damage  done  to 
the  country  by  his  predecessor.*  Finally  he  himself  visited 
Egypt.  There  is  no  direct  evidence  bearing  on  the  date  of  this 
visit,  but  Wiedemann,!  by  combining  an  inscription  recording  the 
death  of  an  Apis  with  a  notice  by  PolyasnusJ  of  a  reward  ofifered 
by  the  king  for  the  discovery  of  another,  has  made  it  appear  that 
it  was,  or  began,  in  his  fourth  year,  that  is  517  b.c.§  His  first  act 
was  to  depose  and  execute  the  satrap.  Then  he  proceeded  to  re- 
store order,  institute  necessary  reforms,  and  otherwise  display  his 
wisdom  and  efficiency  as  a  ruler.  The  greatest  of  his  undertak- 
ings was  the  canal  by  which  he  planned  to  connect  the  Nile  with 
the  Red  Sea,  and  thus  open  communication  by  water  between 
Persia  and  the  Mediterranean.** 

The  presence  of  Darius  in  the  West  was  a  boon,  not  only  to 
Egypt,  but  to  Palestine.  He  may  have  visited  Jerusalem  as  he 
passed  through  the  country  and,  having  personally  inspected  the 
rising  temple,  made  further  provision  for  its  completion.     At  any 

♦  The  country  from  which  Darius  sent  Uzahor  on  this  mission,  according  to  Petrie  {HE., 
iii,  362),  was  Aram,  Syria,  but,  according  to  Brugsch  (Hist.,  ii,  30s),  Elam. 

t  G.4.,  236/.  t  vii,  II,  7.  §  So  also  Noldeke,  APG.,  41. 

**  Wiedemann,  G.A.,  241  /.  The  project  was  abandoned  because  Darius's engineers  told  him 
that  the  level  of  the  Red  Sea  was  higher  than  that  of  Egypt  and  that,  therefore,  if  the  canal 
were  opened  the  country  would  be  flooded. 


24  HISTORICAL    BACKGROUND 

rate,  the  latest  of  Zechariah's  prophecies,  which  is  dated  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Darius  (7'),  in  its  tone  and  content  indicates  im- 
proved conditions.  It  is  evident  that,  when  it  was  written,  the 
Jews,  who  had  previously  been  almost  entirely  confined  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  constantly  annoyed,  as  they  went  and  came,  by  the 
"adversary,"  had  begun  to  occupy  the  surrounding  country  and 
enjoy  the  fruits  of  order  and  security.  Cf.  S'*"^-.  Their  ideas 
had  meanwhile  changed  with  their  circumstances.  They  had  laid 
aside,  for  the  time  being,  their  political  aspirations, — Zerubbabel 
is  not  mentioned, — content  that  Jerusalem  should  be,  not  the  capi- 
tal of  a  great,  independent  kingdom,  but,  as  in  the  visions  of  the 
Second  Isaiah,  a  sanctuary  for  all  nations.  Cf.  8"  ^•.  Note,  too, 
the  emphasis  the  prophet,  in  chs.  7/.,  lays  upon  justice,  mercy, 
etc.,  and  the  clearness  with  which  he  teaches  that  the  practice 
of  these  homely  virtues  is  the  condition  of  the  continued  enjoyment 
by  the  individual  and  the  community  of  the  favour  of  Yahweh. 


HAGGAI  AND   HIS   PROPHECIES. 

§  I.  THE  PERSONAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROPHET. 

The  prophet  Haggai  is  known  only  through  his  book.  True, 
he  is  mentioned  with  Zechariah  in  Ezr.  5^  and  6",  but  the  state- 
ments there  found  are  so  clearly  based  on  the  book  attributed  to 
him  that  they  are  of  no  value  except  to  show  that  a  writer  about 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century  B.C.  believed  him  to  have  been 
a  historical  character.  Nor  is  there  any  direct  information  in  the 
book  of  Haggai  with  reference  to  the  origin  or  personal  history  of 
its  author.  In  most  other  cases  the  name  of  the  prophet's  father 
is  given  (Is.  i^),  or  that  of  the  place  of  his  birth  or  residence 
(Am.  i'),  or  both  (Je.  i^);  but  here  both  are  omitted.  This  fact, 
together  with  the  further  circumstance  that  the  Hebrew  word  hag- 
gay*  may  mean  my  feasts,  gives  some  plausibility  to  the  hypoth- 
esisf  that  this  book,  Hke  that  of  Malachi,  was  originally  an  anony- 
mous work,  and  that  the  name  Haggai,  more  correctly,  Haggay, 
was  given  to  it  because  the  prophecies  it  contained  were  all  dated 
on  feast-days.  The  name  Haggai,  however,  differs  from  Malachi 
in  that,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  comments,  it  can  be  referred  to  a 
numerous  class  having  the  same  form.  Moreover,  while  it  is  true 
that  the  first  of  the  prophecies  attributed  to  Haggai  was  delivered 
on  the  first  of  the  month,  and  the  second  on  the  seventh  day  of 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,{  there  is,  as  Andre  himself  admits,  no 
evidence  that  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  ninth  was  ever  celebrated 
as  a  festival  by  the  Hebrews.  There  is,  therefore,  as  good  ground 
for  accepting  the  historical  reality  of  Haggai  as  that,  for  example, 
of  Habakkuk. 

There  was  current  among  the  early  Christians  a  more  or  less 

*  '-^'^.  t  Andr^,  8. 

t  In  the  earliest  references  to  this  feast  it  is  not  dated,  but  from  the  time  of  Ezechiel  onward 
it  began  on  the  fifteenth  of  the  seventh  month.  Cj.  Ez.  45^  ;  Lv.  23^'' ;  EB.,  art.  Feasts,  §  11  ; 
Nowaclc,  Arch.,  ii,  180. 

25 


26  H.\GGAI 

distinct  tradition  to  the  effect  that  Haggai  was  of  priestly  lineage. 
It  appears  in  a  statement  of  a  certain  Dorotheas,  whom  De- 
litzsch*  identifies  with  a  bishop  of  Tyre  of  the  same  name,  that, 
when  Haggai  died,  "he  was  buried  with  honour  near  the  sepul- 
chre of  the  priests,  where  the  priests  were  customarily  buried; "f 
but  it  is  given  in  a  more  complete  form  by  Hesychius,  who  says 
that  the  prophet  "was  buried  near  the  sepulchre  of  the  priests 
with  honour,  like  them,  because  he  was  of  priestly  stock."  J  It 
should  also  be  noted  as  in  harmony  with  this  tradition  that,  in  the 
versions,  the  name  of  Haggai  appears  in  the  titles  of  some  of  the 
Psalms.  §  This  external  testimony  is  not  in  itself  of  so  much  value, 
but  it  would  deserve  more  serious  consideration  if  there  were 
internal  evidence  to  support  it.  There  are  those  who  claim  that 
there  is  such  evidence.  They  find  it,  first,  in  the  tone  and  pur- 
pose of  the  book,  which  seems  to  them  to  betray  the  personal  in- 
terest of  a  priest  in  the  restoration  of  the  worship  by  which  his  or- 
der had  subsisted  before  the  Exile;**  and,  second,  in  the  prophet's 
familiarity,  as  displayed  in  2"^-,  with  matters  on  which  he  him- 
self represents  the  priests  as  the  recognised  authorities.  These 
reasons,  however,  are  not  convincing,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Jewish  tradition,  although  it  highly  honours  Haggai,  attrib- 
uting to  him  and  Zechariah  and  Malachi,  with  whom  he  is  al- 
most always  associated,  various  important  services, If  does  not 
reckon  him  a  member  of  the  sacerdotal  order.  On  the  whole, 
therefore,  it  seems  safest  to  ignore  the  Christian  tradition  and  re- 
gard the  prophet  as  a  patriotic  Jewish  layman  of  unusual  zeal  for, 
and  therefore,  perhaps,  unusual  acquaintance  with,  the  religion 
in  which  he  had  been  born  and  reared.  J  J 


*  De  Habacuci  Prophela  Vila  alque  Mtate,  54  fj. 

t  Maxima  Bibliolhtca  Velerum  Palrum,  iii,  422  j}.  Cj.  also  Epiphanius,  De  Vilis  Prophe- 
tarum,  ed.  PetaWus,  ii,  235  jj. 

X  Crilica  Sacra,  viii,  Pars,  ii,  col.  33. 

§  In  <K,  137  (138)  and  145-149  (146-149);  in  #,  125  /.  (126  /.)  143-148  (146-148);  in  Ij, 
64(65);  inB,  III  (112)  145 /.  (i46/)-  *♦  .\ndr^,  98^. 

tt  They  are  said  to  have  transmitted  the  Law  to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue,  assisted 
Jonathan  ben  Uziel  in  the  composition  of  his  Targum  on  the  prophets,  introduced  the  final  let- 
ters into  the  Hebrew  alphal>et,  rendered  various  sage  decisions,  etc.  For  numerous  citations, 
cj.  Andr^,  13  fj. 

tt  Marti  claims  that  2"  "■,  so  far  from  indicating  that  Huggai  was  a  priest,  favours  the  con- 
trary opinion. 


HIS   BOOK  27 

The  Christian  writers  above  cited  agree  in  teaching  that  Haggai 
was  born  in  Babylon.  Dorotheus,  Epiphanius  and  others  say 
that  he  was  still  a  young  man  when  he  came  to  Jerusalem.*  Au- 
gustine, however,  had  somewhere  learned  that  both  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  had  prophesied  in  Babylon  before  they  and  their  coun- 
trymen were  released  from  captivity. f  The  Jewish  authorities, 
also,  seem  to  have  thought  of  Haggai  as  a  man  of  mature,  if  not 
advanced,  age  when  he  arrived  in  Palestine.  Otherwise  they 
would  not  have  attributed  to  him  the  wisdom  and  influence  for 
which  they  gave  him  credit.  Ewald  and  other  modern  commen- 
tators think  he  may  have  been  among  those  who  had  seen  the 
temple  of  Solomon  before  its  destruction.  Cf.  2^.  If  so,  he  must 
have  been  between  seventy  and  eighty  years  of  age  when  his 
prophecies  were  uttered.  Perhaps  his  age  explains  why  his 
prophetic  career  was  so  brief.  At  any  rate,  it  seems  to  have  been 
brought  to  a  close  shortly  after  the  foundations  of  the  new  sanc- 
tuary were  laid,  while  Zerubbabel  was  still  governor  of  Jerusalem. 

§  2.      THE    BOOK    OF  HAGGAI, 

The  book  of  Haggai  consists  largely  of  a  series  of  four  compara- 
tively brief  prophecies,  all  dated,  the  last  two  on  the  same  day.  It 
is  evidently  not,  in  its  entirety,  from  the  prophet's  own  hand;  for, 
both  in  the  statements  by  which  the  several  prophecies  are  intro- 
duced (i^  2*-  *°-  ="*)  and  in  the  body  of  the  third  (2^^  ^•),  he  is  re- 
ferred to  only  in  the  third  person.  Moreover,  the  first  prophecy 
is  followed  by  a  description  of  its  effect  upon  those  to  whom  it  was 
addressed  (i*^"^'^)  throughout  which  he  is  treated  in  the  same  ob- 
jective manner.  There  are  similar  passages  in  Zechariah;  a  fact 
which  has  led  Klostermann  to  conclude  that  the  book  of  Haggai 
and  Zc.  1-8  originally  belonged  to  an  accoimt  of  the  rebuilding 
of  the  temple  in  the  reign  of  Darius,  chronologically  arranged  and 
probably  edited  by  Zechariah. J  This  thesis,  however,  cannot  be 
maintained;  for,  in  the  first  place,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  com- 
ments on  i'^,  the  point  on  which  Klostermann  bases  his  supposition, 

*  For  the  text  of  these  references,  cj.  Kohler,  6  /. 

t  Enarraliones  in  P.t.  cxliii.  J  GVI.,  212  /. 


28  HAGGAI 

that  the  combined  works  of  the  two  prophets  once  had  a  chrono- 
logical arrangement,  is  mistaken,  and,  second,  Budde  has  made 
it  pretty  clear  that  the  narrative  portions  of  Zc.  i-8,  in  their  pres- 
ent form,  were  not  written  by  the  author  of  the  prophecies.*  In 
fact,  it  is  possible  to  go  still  farther  and  say  that,  if  Budde  is  cor- 
rect in  his  analysis,  Rothstein's  less  definite  form  of  this  hypoth- 
esis! 3.1so  becomes  untenable,  the  diflference  between  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  books  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  being  so  marked 
that  they  cannot  all  be  attributed  to  any  single  author.  While, 
therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  admit  that  the  book  of  Haggai  is  his 
only  in  the  sense  that  it  contains  his  extant  prophecies,  it  is  equally 
necessary  to  insist  that  it  is,  and  was  intended  to  be,  a  separate 
literary  production. 

The  book  is  so  brief  that  it  seems  almost  ridiculous  to  suspect 
its  unity.  Yet  some  have  not  only  raised  the  question,  whether 
all  the  prophecies  it  contains  are  correctly  attributed  to  Haggai, 
but  actually  found  reasons  for  answering  it  in  the  negative.  The 
most  ambitious  of  these  critics  is  Andre,  who  claims  (24^.)  to 
have  shown  that  2^*'''"  is  an  interpolation,  being,  in  fact,  a  prophecy 
delivered  by  an  unknown  person  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  ninth 
month,  not  of  the  second,  but  of  the  first,  year  of  the  reign  of  Da- 
rius. The  following  is  an  outline  of  his  argument  for  this  conten- 
tion: I.  The  passage  interrupts  the  development  of  the  preceding 
discourse,  the  conclusion  of  which  is  found  in  vv.  ^'"^.  2.  The 
point  of  view  in  this  passage  is  different  from  that  of  the  rest  of 
the  book.  3.  This  message  is  addressed  to  Haggai,  not,  like  the 
others,  to  the  leaders  and  the  people  through  him.  4.  There  are 
palpable  contradictions  between  it  and  other  portions  of  the  book. 
5.  The  vocabulary  of  these  verses  is  different  from  that  of  the  rest 
of  the  book.  These  statements,  if  they  were  all  correct  and  rele- 
vant, would  be  conclusive  against  the  genuineness  of  the  passage 
in  question.  This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  In  fact,  in  every 
instance  either  the  allegation  or  the  inference  from  it  is  mistaken. 
Thus,  although  2^*  repeats  a  clause  from  v.  ^,  the  fact  that  vv.  -'  ^■ 
are  addressed  to  Zerubbabel  alone  makes  it  a  distinct  prophecy, 
which,  moreover,  could  not  have  been  attached  immediately  to 

*  ZAW.,  i<)o6,  I  fl.  ^  KJ.,  46/ 


HIS   BOOK  29 

V.  ®  without  producing  confusion.*  The  second  statement  is  based 
on  an  exaggerated  notion  of  the  subtlety  of  the  illustration  used  in 
2*2  ff--  which,  according  to  Andre,  betrays  the  priestly  legalist. 
It  is  really,  as  will  be  sho^vn  in  the  comments,  a  figure  that  might 
have  occurred  to  any  Jew  zealous  for  his  religion  in  the  days  of 
the  prophet.  The  third  point  touches  the  style,  not  of  Haggai, 
but  of  the  editor  by  whom  his  prophecies  were  collected.  More- 
over, as  will  be  shown,  the  original  reading  in  2^  was  to,  not  hy 
Haggai,  and,  when  this  correction  is  made,  the  alleged  discrep- 
ancy has  disappeared.  The  contradictions  to  which  Andre  re- 
fers under  his  fourth  head  he  finds  in  2"-  *^,  on  the  one  hand, 
compared  uith  i^"  ^-  '^  on  the  other.  For  the  solution  of  these 
difficulties,  see  the  comments  on  the  passages  cited.  There  are, 
as  Andre,  fifthly,  asserts,  differences  of  phraseology  between  2^^'^^ 
and  the  rest  of  the  book,  but  there  is  not  a  case  having  any  sig- 
nificance in  which  the  word  or  phrase  employed  cannot  be  better 
explained  than  by  calling  it  a  mark  of  difference  in  authorship. 


There  is  really  no  necessity  for  discussing  the  thirteen  specifications  under 
this  head,  but  perhaps  it  should  be  done  for  the  sake  of  showing  how  little 
science  is  sometimes  mixed  with  criticism.  The  following  are  the  words  and 
phrases  cited,  with  the  reason,  when  there  is  one,  for  the  use  of  each  of  them 
in  the  given  connection: 

a.  The  use  of  '?3^■^,  temple,  in  2'5-  "^  for  the  more  general  term  n^3, 
house,  of  i2-  1^  has  no  critical  significance.  It  is  used  in  a  precisely  similar 
connection,  and  exclusively,  four  times  in  Zc.  65-'5,  and  with  no  in  Zc.  8'. 
b.  In  2"  yj'',  which  means  wearisome  toil,  and,  when  the  instrument  is  to 
be  expressed,  is  always  followed  by  f):,  palm,  as  in  i",  would  not  have  been 
general  enough;  hence  the  use  of  an^i^  nryc,  work  of  their  hands,  c.  In 
2'2  oil  is  called  pr,  and  not,  as  in  i",  "\nx>,  because  it  is  regarded  as  a  com- 
modity rather  than  a  product  of  the  soil.  d.  The  same  explanation  applies 
to  the  use  of  P'',  wine,  for  U'n\"',  must.  e.  The  use  of  n-\ijc,  granary,  for 
the  no,  house,  home,  in  2"  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  author  is  here 
thinking  of  grain  in  storage,  and  not,  as  in  i',  on  its  way  from  the  field  or  the 
threshing-floor.  /.  The  word  -\:i  is  the  proper  one  for  a  single  garment. 
Hence  it,  and  not  riaS,  which  generally  means  clothing,  is  used  in  2'-,  and 
often  elsewhere,  even  in  connection  with  the  verb  vzh,  clothe,  of  i«.  Cf.  Zc. 
3'.  g.  In  2'*  MJ,  nation,  is  used  of  Israel,  because  a  synonym  is  needed  for 
D",  people.  Cf.  E.X.  33".  This  is  not  the  case  anywhere  else  in  the  book. 
Cf.  i2- 12- 15.  i<  2*.    h.  If  in  2"  the  writer  had  had  a  verb  denoting  fear,  he  would 

♦  .\ndr^  claims  that  w.  5"-  ^\  as  well  as  v.  ■»,  were  added  to  the  text  when  vv.  'i"  were 
inserted. 


30  HAGGAI 

probably  have  used  ^iot  instead  of  ^is'^  for  before,  just  as  he  does  in  i". 
i.  The  omission  of  a3''3"»T'?J,'  in  z"-  "  is  due  to  the  fact  that  here  the  verb 
has  another  object.  Cf.  i'-  '.  k.  The  use  of  nin'  without  riN3X  in  2"  " 
would  have  more  significance  if  the  last  clause  of  v.  "  were  undoubtedly 
genuine  and  Haggai  did  not  employ  the  simple  name  three  times  (j**'''**-  ") 
outside  the  passage  under  consideration.  See  also  i",  an  interpolation. 
/.  The  omission  of  his  title  after  the  name  of  the  prophet  in  2"  '•  b  just  what 
one  would  e.xpect  in  a  passing  reference.  Cf.  Bohme,  ZAW.,  1887,  215. 
Elsewhere  the  title  is  used;  except  in  22",  and  there,  on  the  testimony  of  <ft, 
it  should  be.  Cf.  i'-  '•  '^  2^.  m.  The  priests  appear  in  2"  ^  ,  because  the 
question  is  one  that  not  only  the  high  priest,  but  any  of  his  associates,  ought 
to  be  able  to  answer.  In  all  cases  where  the  high  priest  is  introduced,  he, 
like  Zerubbabel,  is  a  representative  figure.  Cf.  i'-  '■^-  "  2^.  n.  The  case 
of,  Ss,  to,  for  1^2,  by,  has  already  been  discussed  under  point  3,  p.  28. 

In  view  of  this  sho^ving  it  is  not  strange  that  Andre's  hypothesis 
has  met  ^vith  little  favour  from  biblical  scholars.* 

There  is  one  other  extended  passage,  2^""^,  whose  genuineness 
has  been  questioned  by  W.  Bohme  {ZAW.,  1887,  2i5^-)- 

He  mentions  incidentally  the  omission  of  the  title  after  the  name  of  the 
prophet  in  v.  -<>,  laying  the  stress  of  objection  upon  (i)  the  use  of  the  con- 
struction to  (Sn)  for  by  ("f3;  lit.  by  the  hand  of)  in  the  same  verse,  and  (2) 
the  unnecessary  repetition  in  v.  ='  of  a  prophecy  found  in  2^^-  '",  which,  ac- 
cording to  2"--  *,  Zerubbabel  had  already  heard.  These  objections,  however, 
are  easily  answered.  The  missing  title  is  found  in  <&;  the  construction  with 
to  is  the  one  that  was  originally  used  in  vv.  ■•  •»;  and  the  repetition  of  v.  ^^^ 
or  rather,  v.  «'"', — v.'»  is  not  so  literally  reproduced, — is  simply  a  device  for 
connecting  the  fortunes  of  Zerubbabel  with  the  same  events  for  which  the 
prophet  had  sought  to  prepare  the  people.  The  weakness  of  Bohme's  argu- 
ment is  apparent.  This,  however,  is  not  all.  He  has  overlooked  the  fact 
that  Zerubbabel  was  removed  soon  after  Haggai  ceased  to  prophesy,  and 
that,  therefore,  his  theory,  as  Marti  remarks,  implies  that  this  final  prophecy 
was  added  by  a  writer  who  knew  that  it  could  not  be  fulfilled. 


§  3.      THE    TEXT    OF    HAGGAI. 

The  book  of  Haggai,  then,  as  a  whole,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
genuine  collection  of  the  words  of  the  prophet  whose  name  it 
bears.  It  can  hardly  contain  all  that  he  said  on  any  of  the  four 
occasions  on  which  he  is  reported  to  have  spoken,  much  less  all 
that  he  said  during  the  months  when  he  was  labouring  for  the 
restoration  of  the  national  sanctuary.     The  meagreness  of  the 

*  For  a  more  severe  criticism  of  it,  see  G.  A.  Smith  on  Haggai  in  The  Expositor's  Bible. 


THE   TEXT  31 

remains  of  his  teachings,  and  the  setting  in  which  they  have  been 
preserved,  may  be  explained  by  supposing  that  he  himself  did  not 
commit  his  discourses  to  writing,  but  that  a  friend  or  a  disciple, 
who  had  treasured  his  most  striking  or  important  utterances,  soon 
after  his  death*  put  them  into  nearly  the  shape  in  which  they  have 
been  preserved.  It  is  necessary  to  use  some  such  qualifying  term 
as  nearly  in  any  statement  with  reference  to  the  book,  because, 
although,  as  has  been  shown,  its  unity  as  a  literary  production  is 
perfectly  defensible,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  like  other  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament,  it  has  sufifered  more  or  less  in  the  course 
of  the  centuries  at  the  hands  of  careless  or  ignorant  readers  or 
transcribers.  Some  of  the  resulting  additions,  omissions,  and  cor- 
ruptions can  easily  be  detected  and  remedied.  In  other  cases 
changes  that  have  taken  place  reveal  themselves  only  to  the  trained 
critic,  and  by  signs  that  will  not  always  convince  the  layman,  es- 
pecially if  he  is  interested  in  a  diverse  opinion.  This,  however, 
is  not  the  place  for  a  further  discussion  of  the  subject.  It  belongs 
in  the  exegetical,  but  more  especially  in  the  critical,  notes,  where 
the  renderings  of  the  great  Versions,  as  well  as  the  readings  of 
the  Hebrew  manuscripts  and  editions,  viill  be  cited  and  compared 
and  the  conjectures  of  the  leading  biblical  scholars,  past  and  pres- 
ent, considered.  The  most  that  can  be  done  in  this  connection 
is  to  present  in  tabular  form  the  results  reached  in  the  notes  for 
the  piupose  of  indicating  the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  text.  In 
the  first  column  of  the  following  tables  are  noted  the  additions  that 
seem  to  have  been  made  to  the  book  since  it  was  written,  in  the 
second  the  words  and  phrases,  so  far  as  they  can  be  recovered, 
that  appear  to  have  been  omitted,  and  in  the  third  the  cases  in 
which  the  original  has  been  wittingly  or  unwittingly  distorted  in 
the  course  of  transmission. 

*  The  fact  that  all  the  prophecies  are  carefully  and,  so  far  as  can  be  determined,  correctly 
dated  indicates  that  the  book  was  compiled  within  a  few  years,  at  the  longest,  after  they  were 
delivered. 


32 


HAGGAI 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

I,  I. 

av 

2. 

r;' 

S3  for  N3. 

3- 

The  entire  verse. 

4. 

as'Pa  for  D>n3. 

5- 

6. 

7- 

8. 

nini  -ION 

Sy  after  iS?. 

aPN3n  for  dpn-i2; 
130N1  for  rn33Ni. 

9- 

lO. 

ar'^j? 

n  before  a^Sw'. 

''ac  for  nan. 

II. 

Sd  before  i-'n. 

0''£33  for  an>B3. 

12. 

n•\^n1  nns. 

an^^N  after  on<n'^N2. 

^yi  for  Sni. 

13- 

The  entire  verse. 

14. 

15- 

iC-CO 

The  transfer  of  v.  '■  from 

2'. 

2, 1. 

no  for  ''N. 

2. 

"72  before  n^-tNiP. 

^N\-^Sr  for  Sn'oSnc'. 

3- 

4- 

THE   TEXT 


S3 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

CORRUPTIONS. 

I,  I. 

day. 

2. 

a  time. 

to  come  for  hath  come. 

3- 

The  whole  verse. 

4- 

your  houses  for  houses. 

5- 

6. 

7- 

8. 

5a/(f  Yahweh. 

upon  before  the   moun- 
tains. 

bring  for  cut;  and  I  shall 
for  that  I  may. 

9- 

lO. 

over  you. 

art.  before  heaven. 

dew  for  rain. 

II. 

all  before  that. 

hands  for  their  hands. 

12. 

pasha  of  Judah;  to  them 
after  him. 

according  to  for  to  before 

the  words. 

13- 

The  whole  verse. 

14. 

15- 

5fa;/A. 

The  transfer  of  v.  »>  from 
2'. 

2,  I. 

by  for  <o. 

2. 

all  before  the  rest. 

Shaltiel  for  Shealtiel. 

3- 

4. 

34 


HAGGAI 


ADDITIONS. 


2,5.  V.  »  entire. 

6.  rns 

7.  -iNas  nini  icn 
8. 

9.  niN3S  Piin>  ncN 

10.  nm'?  DTr  njttb 

11.  ,niNax  nini  -ics  n;: 

12. 

13- 
14. 

15.  nSyci  nrn  orn-p 

16.  n-iiD 

18.  "'yrnS  »,si  "•;  oro 
19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23- 


'3  before  'S, 


n  before  jntt*. 


Ni3jn  after  'jn. 
n  before  maScD* 


men  for  nnicn. 


T3  for  ':'«,  in  some 
mss. 


Sn  for  Sj?. 

onvna  for  "'C  nvna. 

aaPN  for  D33r. 


■tp.i    for    i>i;      Nirj    for 

INU'J. 


THE   TEXT 

35 

ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

CORRUPTIONS. 

2.5 

which  thing — 
Egypt. 

6. 

once;  yea,  the  sea 
and  the  dry  land. 

7- 

said     Yahweh     of 
hosts. 

desire  for  treasures. 

8. 

for  before  mine. 

9- 

said     Yahweh     of 
hosts. 

lO. 

in  the  second  year 
of  Darius. 

by  for  to,  in  some  mss. 

II. 

Thus  said  Yahweh 
of  hosts. 

12. 

13- 

art.  before  oil. 

14. 

15- 

from  this  day  for- 
ward. 

to  for  upon. 

16. 

17- 

winepress. 

but  ye  did  not  return 
to  me,  saith  Ya- 
weh. 

since     they      were      for 
during  the  days. 

18. 

from     the     twenty- 
fourth      of     the 
ninth  month. 

19. 

and  until  for  nor  yet. 

20. 

the  prophet  after  Haggai. 

has  for  have  borne. 

21. 

son    of    Shealtiel    after 
Zerubbabel. 

22. 

kingdoms  of  the  be- 
fore nations;  each 
by  the   sword  of 
his  fellow. 

art.  before  kingdoms.^ 

23- 

36  HAGGAI 


§  4.  THE  THOUGHT  AND  STYLE  OF  HAGGAI. 

It  has  long  been  the  fashion  to  disparage  the  book  of  Haggai, 
and  some  of  the  later  biblical  scholars  are  almost  as  severe  in 
their  criticism  of  it  as  were,  in  their  day,  Gesenius  and  de  Wette. 

Thus,  Marti  says  of  the  content  of  the  prophecies:  "The  temple  is  to  be 
built  and  salvation  is  near.  From  this  fundamental  thought,  especially 
when  combined  with  the  prophecies  of  the  Second  Isaiah,  all  of  Haggai's 
ideas  may  easily  be  derived.  It  is  clear  that  he  docs  not  belong  to  the  orig- 
inal men  who  were  able  by  interior  illumination  to  comprehend  the  world 
and  its  condition  in  their  judgments,  but  to  the  feebler  descendants  to  whom 
light  streams  from  the  words  of  the  earlier  prophets."  Reuss  has  a  similar 
opinion  of  Haggai's  literary  ability.  These  are  his  words:  "He  generally  falls 
into  the  most  colourless  prose;  and  if  he  a  couple  of  times,  at  the  end  of  the 
second  division,  and  in  the  fourth,  strikes  a  higher  key  and  rises  to  poetic- 
ally flowery  language,  one  sees  that  this  does  not  flow  from  a  living  spring." 
The  mixture  of  figures  into  which  the  critic  himself  here  "falls"  rather  de- 
tracts from  his  authority  in  matters  of  style.  Cornill  is  more  appreciative. 
He  says:  "The  little  book  .  .  .  occupies  but  a  modest  place  in  the  prophetic 
literature  of  Israel.  It  rises  hardly  above  plain  prose,  but  in  its  very  sim- 
plicity and  unpretentiousness,  because  the  author  speaks  from  a  deeply 
moved  heart  in  an  affecting  situation,  it  has  .something  uncommonly  attract- 
ive and  affecting  that  should  not  be  overlooked."  * 

The  truth  is  that  there  is  hardly  a  sufficient  basis  for  a  very 
definite  and  decisive  opinion  with  reference  to  Haggai  and  his 
prophecies.  In  the  first  place,  let  it  be  noted,  the  book  that  bears 
his  name,  next  to  Obadiah,  is  the  smallest  in  the  Old  Testament; 
secondly,  small  as  it  is,  only  about  two-thirds  of  it  can  be  attrib- 
uted to  the  prophet;  and,  thirdly,  these  brief  fragments,  in  passing 
through  the  hands  of  an  editor,  may  have  lost  more  or  less  of  the 
impress  of  Haggai's  personaUty.  This  being  the  case,  criticism 
should  confine  itself  to  the  more  salient  features  of  the  book;  for 
the  more  minute  the  analysis  the  further  it  is  likely  to  be  from 
the  truth. 

The  central  thought  of  the  prophet  is  too  prominent  to  be  over- 
looked. He  was  inspired  with  the  irrepressible  desire  to  see  the 
temple  rebuilt,  and  he  set  himself  the  task  of  persuading  his  peo- 
ple to  restore  it.     In  the  pursuit  of  this  purpose  he  used  the  same 

*  Einl.",  213. 


THE   THOUGHT  AND   STYLE  37 

means  that  his  predecessors  had  employed,  tracing  past  mis- 
fortunes to  neglect  of  a,  to  him,  plain  duty,  and  thus  by  implica- 
tion threatening  further  calamities  if  this  neglect  continued,  but 
promising  the  most  tempting  blessings  if  the  opposite  course  were 
taken.  This,  it  is  true,  is  a  rather  narrow  program  for  a  prophet, 
but  if,  as  can  doubtless  be  shown,  in  Haggai's  time  the  future  of 
the  little  community  in  Jerusalem  and  their  religion  was  involved 
in  the  question  of  the  restoration  of  the  national  sanctuary,  he 
certainly  deserves  some  credit  for  seeing  this,  and  more  for  mov- 
ing the  people  to  take  appropriate  action.  He  was  not  an  Amos 
or  an  Isaiah;  but  must  not  Amos  or  Isaiah,  in  his  place,  have  at- 
tempted what  he  undertook  ?  and  would  either  of  them  have  been 
more  successful? 

The  style  of  Haggai  is  usually  regarded  as  prosaic.  Reuss,  it 
will  be  remembered,  pronounces  it  "colourless."  No  doubt,  it  is 
somewhat  tame,  if  the  brilliancy  of  Isaiah  or  the  polish  of  the  great 
poet  of  the  Exile  be  taken  as  the  standard.  Yet,  Haggai  was  not 
without  the  oriental  liking  for  figures,  nor  are  his  prophecies  as 
unrhythmical  as  they  have  been  represented.  In  describing  his 
style  prominence  has  sometimes  been  given  to  the  frequent  re- 
currence of  "Thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts"  and  "saith  Yahweh," 
or  "Yahweh  of  Hosts,"  and  it  has  been  interpreted  as  a  sign  of 
"the  disappearance  of  the  immediate  consciousness  of  inspira- 
tion."* But  these  expressions  are  not  peculiar  to  Haggai.  In 
fact,  when  the  instances  in  which  they  have  been  interpolated  (6) 
are  deducted,  it  will  be  found  that  he  does  not  use  them  as  many 
times  in  his  whole  book  as  Jeremiah  does  in  the  twenty-third 
chapter  of  his  prophecies. f  It  is  even  more  incorrect  to  repre- 
sent the  use  of  interrogation  as  characteristic  of  this  prophet. J 
There  are  in  all  six  cases.  But  in  the  second  chapter  of  Jeremiah, 
which  contains  only  thirty-seven  verses,  there  are  nineteen,  or, 
proportionately,  twice  as  many.  There  is  one  expression  that  may 
safely  be  regarded  as  peculiar  to  Haggai,  namely,  "take  thought" 
(lit.,  "set  your  hearts"),  which  occurs  no  fewer  than  five  times, 
and,  being  found  in  the  third  as  well  as  the  first  prophecy,  is  a 

*  So  Nowack,  in  the  introduction  to  his  commentary  on  the  book  of  Haggai. 
t  The  exact  figures  are  14  to  21.  J  Andre.  115. 


38 


HAGGAI 


proof  that  the  former  is  not,  as  Andre  contends,  an  interpolation. 
See  pp.  2^ff.  It  seems  to  be  characteristic  of  Haggai,  too,  where 
there  is  an  opportunity,  to  introduce  extended  lists  of  particulars. 
Such  series  occur  in  i®-  "  and  2*^-  *®. 


In  the  first  three  cases,  however,  it  is  possible  that  the  text  has  been  inter- 
polated. In  i«  (freely  rendered)  the  arrangement  that  suggests  itself  is  as 
follows : 

Ye  have  sown  much,  but  harvested  little; 
Eaten  witlwut  satisfaction,  drunken  li'ithout  exhilaration,  clothed 
yourselves  without  comfort; 
And  the  hireling  earned,— for  a  leaky  purse. 
In  i"  a  similar  arrangement  is  possible: 

Yea,  I  summoned  a  drought  upon  the  land: 
Even  upon  the  highlands,  and  the  grain,  and  the  must,  and  the  oil; 
And  all  that  the  soil  produced. 
In  2"  bread,  or  pottage,  or  wine,  or  oil  sounds  like  another  list  of  specifica- 
tions, but  it  precedes  instead  of  following  the  general  term  any  food.     This 
fact  seems  unfavourable  to  the  theory  of  interpolation.     Even  more  so  is  the 
case  of  2",  for  here  the  series  appears  to  be  necessary  to  the  expression  of  the 
prophet's  thought.     It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  he  actually  wrote: 
Is  the  seed  yet  in  the  garfier? — 
Nor  have  the  vine,  and  the  Jig,  and  the  pomegranate,  and  the  olive 
tree  borne: — 
From  this  day  will  I  bless. 
If  he  did,  perhaps  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  he  was  apt  to  express  him- 
self in  this  fashion.     Not  that  he  did  not  sometimes  put  his  thoughts  into  a 
more  regular  form.     Take,  for  example,   i>o  (omitting  the  evidently  super- 
fluous D3'''?y)»  which  might  be  freely  rendered: 

Therefore  heaven  withheld  the  rain, 
and  the  earth  withheld  its  fruit. 
This  is  a  fairly  good  specimen  of  Hebrew  parallelism.     It  is  interesting  as 
showing  that  he  had  caught  the  measure,  as  well  as  adopted  some  of  the  ideas , 
of  the  Second  Isaiah.     It  is  also  important,  since  it  furnishes  a  warrant  for 
correcting  some  of  the  irregularities  in  his  prophecies,  when  other  considera- 
tions point  in  the  same  direction.     Applied  to  2^-^  the  metrical  principle  con- 
firms the  following  analysis.     The  words  in  plain  type  are  accretions: 
•.  For  thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts  : 
Yet  once  a  little  while. 
And  I  will  shake  heaven  and  earth, 
and  the  sea,  and  the  dry  land; 
'.  yea,  I  will  shake  all  nations; 

A  nd  the  treasures  of  all  nations  shall  come, 
and  I  will  fill  this  house  with  wealth, 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts: 
'.  For  mine  is  the  silver,  and  mine  the  gold, 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts. 


THE   THOUGHT   AND   STYLE  39 

'.  Great  shall  be  the  wealth  of  this  house, 
the  future  above  the  past, 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts: 
And  in  this  place  I  will  grant  peace, 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts.* 

Other  illustrations  might  be  cited,  but  it  would  probably  be 
difficult,  without  more  or  less  violence  to  the  text,  to  reduce  the 
whole  book,  or  even  the  prophecies,  to  a  poetical  form.  Still,  too 
much  of  it  is  metrical  to  justify  the  distinction  made  by  Kohler 
(31)  that,  "while  the  method  of  presentation  preferred  by  the 
older  prophets  was  the  poetical,  that  of  Haggai,  on  the  other  hand, 
]:)ore  an  oratorical  character."  It  would  be  more  nearly  correct 
to  say  that  the  compiler  of  the  book  uses  prose,  and  the  prophet 
himself  at  first  speaks  the  language  of  common  life,  but  that,  as 
he  proceeds,  he  adopts  to  a  varying  extent  poetical  forms  of 
thought  and  expression. 

*  In  every  case  the  ungenuineness  of  the  word  or  words  omitted  can  be  established  without 
reference  to  the  metre.     For  details,  see  the  comments. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PROPHECIES 
OF  HAGGAI. 

Most  of  the  prophetical  books  have  proper  titles.  They  are  of 
varying  length,  that  of  Jeremiah  being  the  longest  and  most  com- 
prehensive and  that  of  Obadiah,  as  is  fitting,  the  shortest.  The 
book  of  Haggai,  like  those  of  Ezekiel,  Jonah  and  Zechariah,  has 
none,  the  opening  verse  being  merely  an  introduction  to  the  first 
of  a  brief  series  of  prophecies  of  which  the  two  chapters  of  the  work 
are  mainly  composed.  The  contents  of  these  chapters  naturally 
fall  into  four  sections,  each  of  which  has  prefixed  to  it  the  date  of 
the  prophecy  therein  reported.  The  general  subject  is  the  resto- 
ration of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.    The  first  subordinate  topic  is 

§  I.    THE  MOVEMENT  TO   REBUILD  THE 
SANCTUARY  (1*-^'=^). 

This  topic  occupies  the  whole  of  the  first  chapter,  in  its  original 
extent,  but  the  prophet  is  the  speaker  only  in  vv.  *''\  the  rest  of 
the  passage  being  an  account  of  the  effect  of  his  message  on  those 
to  whom  it  was  delivered.  Hence  it  \\all  be  advisable  to  discuss 
the  chapter  under  two  heads,  the  first  being 

O.      THE    MESSAGE    OF   THE    PROPHET    (l''")' 

It  begins  abruptly  with  the  citation  of  the  adverse  opinion  among 
the  Jews  with  reference  to  the  question  of  rebuilding  the  sanctuary 
(v.  ^).  Haggai  argues  for  the  contrary,  presenting  two  reasons 
(vv.  ^■")  calculated  to  appeal  strongly  to  those  to  whom  they  were 
addressed.  Taking  the  validity  of  these  arguments  for  granted, 
he  proceeds  to  exhort  his  people  to  act  in  the  matter  (vv. ' ') ;  but, 

40 


I'-*'  41 

instead  of  resting  his  case  at  this  point,  to  make  sure  that  his  ex- 
hortation will  be  heeded  he  repeats,  the  second  of  his  arguments 
(vv.  ^"'^),  giving  it  a  form  so  direct  and  positive  that  it  cannot  be 
misunderstood,  and  so  forcible  that  he  who  ignores  it  must  take 
the  attitude  of  defying  the  Almighty. 

1.  All  the  prophecies  of  Haggai  were  delivered  in  the  second 
year  of  Darius.  There  are  two,  possibly  three,  persons,  real  or 
imaginary,  mentioned  by  this  name  (Heb.  Dareyawesh;  Per. 
Darayaya'ush)  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  first  is  "Darius  the 
Mede,"  the  mythical  conqueror  who,  according  to  Dn.  6^1  f^, 
"received  the  kingdom"  of  Babylon  after  the  death  of  Belshazzar. 
The  third  is  "Darius  the  Persian"  (Ne.  12^-). 

In  Dn.  9'  Darius  is  called  "the  son  of  Ahasuerus,"  that  is,  Xerxes;  but,  since 
Xerxes  belongs  to  a  period  (485-465  B.C.)  considerably  later  than  that  of  the 
Persian  invasion  (539  B.C.),  it  is  impossible  that  his  son,  who,  moreover,  bore 
the  name  Artaxerxes,  had  anything  to  do  with  that  event.  It  is  probable  that 
the  author  of  Daniel,  having  but  a  confused  traditional  knowledge  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  East,  and  being  influenced  by  earlier  predictions  (Is.  13"  ^-  212  s. 
Je.  si'"'-  ^'  ^0  to  the  effect  that  the  Medes  would  overthrow  Babylon,  like  the 
author  of  Tobit  i4'6  identified  the  best-known  of  the  Medo-Persian  kings  with 
Cyaxares,  the  destroyer  of  Nineveh,  and  then  made  Darius,  who  actually  took 
Babylon  twice  during  his.  reign,  a  son  of  this  Median  ruler  and  gave  him  the 
credit  of  overthrowing  the  Babylonian  empire.  Cf.  EB.,  arts.  Darius;  Per- 
sia, 13;  Prince,  Daniel,  S2iff-  Winckler  {KA  T.^,  288)  thinks  that  Cambyses 
is  meant.     On  the  older  views,  see  DB.,  art.  Darius;  Prince,  45. 

Winckler  {KA  T.^,  288)  identifies  Darius  the  Persian  with  Darius  Hystaspes. 
The  more  common  opinion  is  that  Darius  Codomannus,  the  last  of  the  Per- 
sian kings,  is  the  one  so  designated.     So  Meyer,  £/.,  104;  et  al. 

The  author  of  Ne.  12"'  ^-  begins  with  a  genealogy  of  the  high  priests  of  the 
Persian  period  (w.  ""•),  which  is  followed  by  a  list  of  the  names  of  the  heads 
of  the  priestly  houses  for  "the  days  of  Joiakim."  Cf.  w.  '=-21.  Finally  he 
asserts,  v.  ",  where  all  reference  to  the  Levites  should  be  omitted,  that,  in  the 
source  from  which  he  drew,  there  were  similar  lists  for  the  period  of  each  of  the 
high  priests  mentioned  "until  (ny  for  S;?)  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Persian." 
In  other  words,  he  makes  Nehemiah  a  contemporary  of  Eliashib  and  the  king 
he  has  in  mind  a  contemporary  of  Jaddua,  three  generations  later,  the  date 
of  Darius  Codomannus.  This  conclusion  is  not  affected  however  one  may 
interpret  Ne.  13=8,  that  passage  being  by  a  different  author.  Cf.  JBL.,  xxii, 
97/- 

The  king  to  whom  reference  is  here  made  is  Darius  Hystaspes. 
This  is  clear  from  Zc.  f,  where  the  prophet,  who  was  a  contempo-      [J 
rary  of  Haggai,  in  a  message  delivered  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius, 


42  HAGGAI 

represents  the  period  of  affliction  as  having  lasted  seventy  years; 
for  Darius  Hystaspes  came  to  the  throne,  as  has  already  been  de- 
scribed (p.  20),  in  521  B.C.,  so  that  his  fourth  year  was  the  sixty- 
ninth  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  CJ.  also  Zc.  i^^.  He  is 
here  called  simply  ike  king,  not,  as  he  is  by  later  writers,  "king  of 
Persia."  Cf.  Ezr.  i^  Dn.  i***.  His  second  year  corresponded 
roughly  to  520  B.C.,  and  the  sixth  month,  according  to  the  Baby- 
^  Ionian  system,  which  was  adopted  by  the  Jews  during  the  Exile,* 
to  the  latter  part  of  August  and  the  first  {)art  of  September.  It  was 
on  the  first  day  of  this  month,  then  called  Elnl  (Ne.  6^^),  when  the 
people  were  enjoying  a  holiday  (Am.  8^  Is.  66^^),  that  the  word  of 
Yahweh  came,  lit.,  was.-\  See  also  v.  ^  2^-  ^"^  ^^  Zc.  i\  et  pas. 
The  message  came  hy,  lit.,  hy  the  hand  of,X  Haggai  the  prophet. 
Hitherto  it  has  not  been  clear  who  was  writing.  It  now  appears 
that  it  is  not  Haggai  recording  his  own  utterances,  but  some  one 
else  reporting  what  the  prophet  said  on  various  occasions.  This 
becomes  more  evident  in  the  next  section,  where  the  same  author, 
presumably,  describes  the  effect  of  Haggai's  preaching.  The 
prophet,  it  seems,  when  the  book  was  compiled,  had  already  closed 
his  career.  His  message  was  intended  primarily  for  two  persons 
at  that  time  prominent  in  Jerusalem.  The  first  was  Zerubbabel. 
His  name,  whatever  may  be  its  first  component,  evidently  has  for 
its  second  the  Hebrew  designation  for  Babylon.  The  person  so 
called  is  described  as  a  son  of  Shealtiel ,  who,  according  to  i  Ch.  3'", 
was  the  eldest  son  of  the  captive  king  Jehoiachin  (2  K.  24*^^  25") 
and  governor  of  Judah. 

(1 )  The  name  Haggai  was  not  borne  by  any  other  person  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament,  but  there  are  many  other  names  of  the  same  class.  Cf. 
Ezbai,  Amittai,  Barzillai,  Zakkai,  etc.  It  is  commonly  interpreted  as  a  deriv- 
ative, in  the  sense  ol  festal,  liom  in,  feast.  So  Ew.  '  %  "■'*;  Ols.  i^iTa.  Qcg. 
h  *»•  ^-  *.  It  may,  however,  be  a  mutilated  form  of  njjn,  i  Ch.  6", — like 
^jno,  Ezr.  lo*",  for  n'jnn,  Gn.  46'6, — of  which  there  is  a  feminine  .T'jn.  Cf. 
a  S.  3^  The  Massoretic  vocalisation  is  supported  by  Gr.  'A77atoj  and  Lat. 
Haggaeus  or  Aggceus. 

*  C/.  DB.,  art.  Time;  EB.,  art.  Year;  Benzinger.  .Arch.,  199  /. 

t  This  form  of  expression  is  frequent  in  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  and  later  writings.  See 
especially  the  book  of  Ezekiel,  where  it  occurs  about  fifty  times. 

X  This,  also,  is  a  late  idiom,  common  from  the  E.xile  onward.  Cj.  Ju.  3'  i  K.  12'''  Je.  37=, 
et  pas. ;  also  C.  and  HB.,  Hex.,  i,  219a. 


I-"  43 

<2)  Of  the  various  etymologies  for  Zerubbabel  thus  far  suggested  the  most 
attractive  is  that  which  makes  it  a  Hebrew  modification  of  Zer-babili,  seed  of 
Babylon,  a  name  that  actually  occurs  in  inscriptions  of  the  time  of  Darius.  Cf. 
Pinches,  OT.,  425.  For  others,  cf.  DB.,  art.  Zerubbabel;  Kohler,  11  f.  The 
Hebrew  vocalisation  is  explained  by  van  Hoonacker  (PP.),  who  translates  it 
"Crush  Babylon"  (S33  a^r)  as  an  instance  of  paronomasia,  intended  to 
express  at  the  same  time  "the  hopes  that  his  compatriots  based  upon  the 
scion  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  and  the  resentment  that  they  cherished  against 
Babylon." 

<'>  Mt.  i'2  makes  Zerubbabel  the  son  of  Shealtiel,  but  according  to  i  Ch. 
3",  he  was  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  a  younger  brother  of  Shealtiel.  A  deal  of  in- 
genuity has  been  expended  in  trying  to  harmonise  these  conflicting  genealo- 
gies. Thus,  Aben  Ezra  explains  that  Zerubbabel  was  reared  by  his  uncle,  and 
therefore  called  the  son  of  Shealtiel.  So  Dru.,  el  at.  Ki.  prefers  to  think  that 
Pedaiah  was  a  son,  not  a  brother,  of  Shealtiel,  and  that  Zerubbabel  was  called 
the  son  of  his  grandfather  because  the  latter  was  held  in  higher  honour  than 
the  father.  SoHd.,e/a/.  Some  Christian  exegetes  have  undertaken  to  harmo- 
nise this  passage  and  i  Ch.  3'^,  not  only  with  each  other,  but  with  Lu.  32',  where 
Shealtiel  is  the  son,  not  of  Jeconiah,  but  of  Neri,  a  descendant  of  David 
through  the  line  of  Nathan.  Cf.  i  Ch.  35.  Koh.  on  2"^  does  it  as  follows: 
Jeconiah,  as  a  result  of  the  curse  pronounced  upon  him  by  Jeremiah  (2230), 
had  no  grandsons,  but  his  son  Assir  had  a  daughter  who,  in  accordance  with 
the  law  for  such  cases  (Nu.  36*  i-),  married  Neri  and  bore  him,  first  Shealtiel, 
who  became  the  heir  of  Assir,  and  was  reckoned  his  son,  then  six  others, 
among  them  Pedaiah.  Next,  Shealtiel  died,  leaving  a  widow  but  no  children; 
whereupon  his  brother  Pedaiah  took  his  wife  and  begot  Zerubbabel,  who,  in 
accordance  with  the  law  of  levirate  (Dt.  25^  ^■),  was  the  legal  son  and  heir  of 
the  deceased.  Thus  Zerubbabel  is  made  to  appear  the  son  of  both  Shealtiel 
and  Pedaiah,  the  grandson  of  Neri,  and  a  remoter  descendant  of  Jeconiah. 
The  flaw  in  this  ingenious  scheme  is  that  it  is  based  on  a  mistaken  interpre- 
tation of  a  corrupt  passage.  It  falls  to  pieces  at  once  when  n''DN  in  i  Ch.  3" 
is  properly  rendered,  not  as  a  proper  name,  but  as  an  adjective  used  adverbi- 
ally in  the  sense  of  when  imprisoned.  Cf.  Ges.  5  ''*•  ^  '<*).  It  is  therefore 
necessary  to  recognise  in  Shealtiel  a  son  of  Jeconiah,  and  abandon  the  attempt 
to  make  the  Chronicler  agree  with  Luke.  The  discrepancy  between  the 
Chronicler  and  Haggai,  however,  can  be  removed  by  substituting  Shealtiel 
for  Pedaiah,  as  (&  does,  in  i  Ch.  3'^ ;  which,  moreover,  makes  the  Chronicler 
consistent  with  himself.     Cf.  Ezr.  3-  5'  Ne.  12'. 

The  natural  inference  is  that  Zerubbabel  was  a  prince  of  the 
house  of  Da\dd  who  had  not  only  been  released  from  captivity, 
but,  in  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the  Persian  kings,  appointed 
to  administer  the  affairs  of  his  conquered  country  under  the  higher 
official  called  in  Ezr.  5^  "the  governor  beyond  the  River."  How 
long  he  had  occupied  this  position  when  Haggai  began  to  proph- 
esy, there  seems  to  be  no  means  of  discovering.*    With  him  was 

*  For  an  apocryphal  account  of  his  selection  for  it,  see  i  Esd.  4"  '■• 


44  HAGGAI 

associated  Joshua*  son  of  Jehosadak.    The  father,  according  to 

1  Ch.  5^°/6",  was  a  son  of  Seraiah,  the  chief  priest  who  was  put 
to  death  by  Nebuchadrezzar  at  Riblah  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Cf.  2  K.  25^**^-  Je.  52^^^-.  Ezra  the  scribe,  accord- 
ing to  Ezr.  f,  was  his  brother.  Jehosadak,  as  well  as  Ezra,  was 
carried  into  captivity  to  Babylon  (i  Ch.  5''V6''''),  where  Joshua 
seems  to  have  been  bom  and  reared.  Kosters  {WL,  41/.)  ques- 
tions whether  he  was  the  grandson  of  Seraiah,  and  therefore 
whether  he  was  ever  in  Babylonia.  The  Chronicler,  he  says, 
holding  the  mistaken  opinion  that  there  had  been  a  continuous  line 
of  high  priests  from  the  Exodus  to  his  own  time,  took  for  granted 
that  Joshua  was  a  lineal  descendant  of  Seraiah  and  used  Jehosa- 
dak as  a  link  to  connect  them.  This  may  be  true,  but  there  are 
some  considerations  that  make  it  possible  to  believe  the  contrary, 
(i)  Although  the  Jews  had  no  high  priest,  in  the  sense  in  which 
the  term  is  used  in  the  Hexateuch,  before  the  Exile,  such  passages 
as  2  K.  11*^,  as  well  as  25*^,  show  that  they  had  a  chief  over  their 
priests,  and  other  passages,  like  i  S.  14^,  prove  that  the  office  reg- 
ularly descended  from  father  to  son.  Cf.  EB.,  art.  Priest,  5;  Ben- 
zinger.  Arch.,  413  /.  (2)  Since  the  high-priesthood  proper  was 
but  an  extension  of  this  hereditary  office,  it  may  be  taken  for 
granted,  unless  there  is  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  the  former  was 
the  heritage  of  the  family  that  had  enjoyed  the  latter.  (3)  The 
importance  of  the  succession  was  such  that  there  must  have  been 
records  with  reference  to  it  from  which  the  Chronicler  was  able 
to  obtain  reliable  information.  In  Ne.  12^'  a  source  of  this  sort 
is  cited.  Fortunately,  it  is  not  necessary  to  decide  the  question 
of  Joshua's  pedigree,  the  important  thing  being  that  he  was  the 
high  priest  when  Haggai  prophesied,  and  that  this  is  perhaps  the 
oldest  instance  of  the  use  of  the  title  in  the  Old  Testament.f 

2.  The  prophet,  after  a  formal  announcement,  Thus  saith  Yah- 
iveh  of  Hosts,  introduces  the  subject  of  his  discourse  by  citing  the 
prevalent  opinion  \\ath  reference  to  it.     The  very  first  words  are 

*  In  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Jeshua,  whence  the  Greek  "Ijjo'oOs  and  the  English  Jesus. 

t  It  occurs  in  Lv.  21'"  Nu.  352*  ^s  jos_  jo«  (^n  p.);  as  a  gloss  in  2  K.  i2"/">  22<- »  23*;  and  in 

2  Ch.  34"  Ne.  3'-  2°  13-'.  In  the  books  of  Chronicles  and  Ezra  its  place  is  supplied  by  U'N-\n  jno, 
the  chief  prust,  or  its  equivalent.  Cf.  i  Ch.  27^  2  Ch.  ig"  24'-  "  26^°  31"'  Ezr.  7';  also  2  K. 
35"'  =  Je-  S>^- 


I'-"  45 

ominous,  for  here,  as  in  Is.  8®  and  often  elsewhere,  the  phrase  this 
people  betrays  impatience  and  disapproval.*  The  reason  for  Yah- 
weh's  displeasure  is  that  the  people  say,  have  said  and  are  still 
saying,  The  time  hath  not  come  for  the  house  of  Yahweh  to  be  built, 
that  is,  rebuilt.  At  first  sight  this  objection  would  seem  to  mean 
that  those  who  made  it  were  waiting  for  the  expiration  of  the  sev- 
enty years  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy.  Cf.  Je.  25".  The  answer 
given  to  it  shows  that  it  was  dictated  by  selfishness,  which  mani- 
fested itself  also  in  absorption  in  comparatively  trivial  personal 
affairs  to  the  neglect  of  the  larger  issues  that  ought  to  interest  all 
the  members  of  the  community.  Nor  did  they  simply  neglect 
the  ruined  house.  The  words  cited  breathe  resistance  to  an  appeal 
in  favour  of  rebuilding  it.  It  is  probable  that  the  proposal  had  been 
made  or  strongly  supported  by  Haggai  himself,  and  that  therefore 
the  prophecy  here  recorded  was  not  the  first  to  which  he  gave  ut- 
terance.— 3.  The  tone  of  v.  "  leads  the  reader  to  expect  an  indig- 
nant and  immediate  reply  to  the  excuse  given.  The  present  text 
first  repeats  the  announcement  of  v.  \  as  if  the  prophet,  having 
made  the  statement  of  v.  ^,  did  not  proceed  until  he  had  received 
further  instructions.  Any  such  supposition,  however,  so  weakens 
the  force  of  the  prophet's  message  that  it  is  better  to  omit  this 
verse  altogether.  See  the  textual  notes. — 4.  Thus  it  appears  that 
V.  ^  was  originally  immediately  followed  by  the  question,  Is  it  a 
time  for  you  yourselves  to  dwell  in  ceiled  houses,  while  this  house  is 
desolate?  The  ceiled,  or  panelled,  houses  elsewhere  mentioned 
were  finished  in  cedar.  The  same  wood  was  used  in  the  first 
temple  (i  K.  6^);  also  in  the  dwellings  of  the  rich  in  the  time  of 
Jeremiah.  Cf.  Je.  22".  It  is  hardly  possible  that  this  or  any  other 
costly  wood  was  found  in  many  of  the  houses  of  those  whom  Hag- 
gai was  addressing; — most  of  them  must  have  been  miserably 
poor; — but  they  all  had  roofs  over  their  heads,  while  Yahweh  as 
yet  had  no  habitation.  The  temple  had  now  been  desolate  about 
sixty-seven  years,  and  it  was  nineteen  years  since  Cyrus  had  re- 
leased the  Jews  from  captivity. — 5.  The  people  had  now  for  some 

*  The  words  are  rendered  additionally  forcible  by  being  placed  in  a  semi-independent  rela- 
tion before  the  verb,  which  might  be  indicated  by  the  rendering,  This  people,  ihcy  say.  Cj. 
Ges.  5 '«. 


46  HAGGAI 

time  been  suffering,  how  and  to  what  extent  will  appear  later. 
Perhaps  they  had  made  this  an  excuse  for  not  rebuilding  the  temple. 
It  had  not  occurred  to  them  that  their  misfortunes  might  be  due  to 
their  neglect  of  Yahweh.  Haggai  was  decidedly  of  this  opinion. 
He  therefore  follows  the  question  of  the  preceding  verse  with  the 
exhortation,  take  thought  on  your  ways.  This,  in  view  of  the  use  of 
the  same  expression  in  v. ',  seems  a  better  rendering  than  that  of 
Wellhausen,  Consider  how  ye  have  fared.  Cf.  also  2^^-  ^*. — 6.  The 
prophet  might  next  have  reminded  his  people  how  often  and  how 
widely  they  had  departed  from  the  path  of  loyalty  and  righteous- 
ness. Perhaps  he  did  so  in  the  original  discourse,  and  these  de- 
tails have  been  omitted.  In  any  case,  they  do  not  appear  in  his 
book,  but  here,  taking  them  for  granted,  he  proceeds  to  recite 
some  of  the  results  of,  or,  as  he  would  have  put  it,  the  penalties  for, 
their  conduct,  and  especially  for  their  neglect  of  the  sanctuary. 
Ye  have  sowed  much,  he  says,  and  harvested  little.  He  is  reminding 
them  of  the  repeated  failure  of  their  crops.  This  is  in  itself  a  great 
calamity.  It  is  therefore  not  probable  that,  in  the  details  which 
follow,  the  prophet  intends  to  convey  the  idea  sometimes  attrib- 
uted to  him  (Koh.),  that  food,  drink  and  clothing  were  deprived 
of  their  natural  properties  to  increase  the  suffering  from  scarcity. 
He  means  simply  that  so  small  were  the  returns  from  the  soil, 
when  those  who  lived  from  it  ate,  there  was  not  enough  to  still  their 
hunger;  when  they  drank  wine,  they  could  never  drink  their  ^//, 
lit.,  to  drunkenness  (Gn.  43'^0;  3,nd  when  they  dressed  themselves, 
their  clothing  was  so  scanty  that  none  of  them  was  warm.  Cf. 
v. "  2*^.  This  was  the  condition  of  the  husbandman.  That  of  the 
labourer  was  equally,  if  not  more,  wretched;  for  he  who  wrought 
for  wages  earned — for  a  leaky  purse;  that  is  to  say,  when  he  could 
secure  employment,  which,  according  to  Zc.  8^",  was  rare,  his  pay 
was  so  small,  in  comparison  with  the  prices  he  had  to  pay  for  the 
necessities  of  life,  that  it  seemed  to  him  as  if  his  wages  had  disap- 
peared through  holes  in  his  purse  as  soon  as  he  had  received  them. 

There  is  another  interpretation  that  deserves  mention,  if  for  no  other 
reason  on  account  of  its  ingenuity.  It  is  that  of  Andre.  He  takes  ^ns  in  the 
sense  of  little  stone  and  renders  the  clause  in  question,  the  hireling  wrought  for 
a  little  pierced  stone.     This  he  interprets  as  an  allusion  to  a  custom  that  ex- 


I-"  47 

isted  in  Babylon,  where,  he  says,  one  who  had  bought  a  slave  at  the  market 
hung  his  seal  about  the  neck  of  the  newly  acquired  chattel  to  indicate  that  he 
or  she  was  his  property.  He  says  that  as  "put  in  irons"  is  equivalent  to  "im- 
prison," so  "a  pierced  pebble"  means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  "slavery." 
Hence  to  work  for  a  pierced  pebble  is  in  the  end,  in  spite  of  one's  work,  to  be- 
come a  slave.  The  following  are  some  of  the  objections  to  this  interpretation: 
(i)  The  usual  meaning  of  ins  is  bag  or  purse.  Cf.  Jb.  14"  Gn.  4,2^.  (2) 
If  the  prophet  had  wished  to  express  the  idea  attributed  to  him  by  Andre,  he 
would  probably  have  used  anin,  the  proper  word  for  seal.  Cf.  2^  Gn.  381* 
Ct.  8^.  (3)  Although  '^N  is  used  in  the  sense  ol  for  the  sake  of  (i  K.  19^),  the 
more  natural  interpretation  is  that  it  denotes  destination  after  a  pregnant 
verb.     Cf.  Gn.  19='. 

7.  The  representation  of  the  ills  the  Jews  had  suffered  and  were 
suffering  as  chastisement  for  their  shortcomings  was  calculated  to 
move  them  to  ask  what  they  could  do  to  secure  the  favour  of  Yah- 
weh  and  different  treatment  from  his  hands.  Haggai  next  an- 
swers this  question;  and  first,  if  the  text  is  correct,  in  general  terms, 
by  repeating  the  exhortation  of  v.  ^,  Take  thought  on  your  ways; 
by  which  he  means  that,  as  they  have  offended,  so  they  can  appease, 
their  God  by  their  beha^dour.  He  does  not,  however,  stop  with 
this  general  suggestion.  There  is  one  thing  above  all  others  that 
they  ought  to  have  done,  but  have  left  undone.  Their  first  duty 
is  to  make  good  this  omission.  Go  up,  he  says,  speaking  for  Yah- 
weh,  into  the  moimtains  and  cut  timber,  and  build  the  house.  It  is 
not  clear  to  what  mountains*  he  refers.  The  hills  both  of  Judah 
and  Ephraim  seem  to  have  been  well  wooded  in  ancient  times. 
Cf.  the  name  Kirjath-jearim  (Jos.  9";  also  Jos.  17^*^-  i  S.  14^^-). 
Carmel  was  noted  for  its  forests.  Cf.  Mi.  7"  Ct.  f.  It  is  possi- 
ble that  the  prophet  had  in  mind  Lebanon,  whence  the  timber  for 
the  first  temple  was  procured.  Cf.  i  K.  5^^^75^-.  The  author 
of  Ezr.  3^  evidently  thought  so,  since  he  says,  apparently  on  the 
basis  of  this  passage,  that  the  Jews,  when  they  first  attempted  to 
rebuild  the  sanctuary,  employed  "the  Sidonians  and  the  Tyrians 
to  bring  cedars  from  Lebanon  to  the  sea,"  and  thus  "to  Joppa."f 
Still  it  is  doubtful  if,  under  the  circumstances,  Haggai  would  have 
directed  his  people  to  seek  materials  for  the  new  structure  at  so 

♦  The  noun  is  singular  in  the  original,  but  in  such  a  case  it  frequently  means  a  hilly  or  moun- 
tainous region.     Cj.  Dt.  i'  Is.  ii^. 
t  On  the  authenticity  of  this  passage,  see  pp.  9  /. 


48  HAGGAI 

great  a  distance.  It  would  have  involved  too  much  time  and  ex- 
pense and  attracted  too  much  attention.  Nothing  is  said  of  stone, 
because  there  was  plenty  of  this  material  in  the  ruins  of  the  city, 
if  not  in  those  of  the  former  temple.  The  motive  for  the  action 
required  is  a  double  one;  first,  that  I  may  take  pleasure  in  it.* 
The  second  clause  may  be  rendered,  as  it  is  by  the  great  Versions, 
that  I  may  be  glorified,  namely,  by  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary, 
or,  better,  that  I  may  glorify  myself,  i.  e.,  by  a  display  of  glory  in- 
augurate the  Messianic  era.  SoKoh.,We.,Now.,Marti,g/o/.  The 
prophet  makes  no  reference  to  the  political  situation,  but,  as  has 
been  shown  elsewhere,  his  proposal  synchronises  too  closely  with 
the  disturbance  in  the  East  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Darius 
to  permit  one  to  doubt  that  he  intended  to  take  advantage  of  it  to 
attain  the  object  he  had  at  heart. — 9.  In  presenting  to  the  Jews 
the  prospect  of  pleasing  Yahweh  the  prophet  was  appealing  to  a 
powerful  motive,  the  universal  desire  for  life  and  happiness,  pe- 
culiarly prominent  in  Deuteronomy.  He  does  not,  however,  rely 
on  this  alone,  but  again  recalls  their  past  experience  to  show  what 
are  the  consequences  of  disregarding  the  divine  will.  Ye  have 
looked  for  much,  he  makes  Yahweh  say,  and  lo,  it  became,  or  had 
become,  little.  Cf.  2^".  Nor  was  this  all,  for  he  adds,  as  ye  brought 
this  little  home,  I  blew  upon  it.  At  first  thought  it  seems  as  if  the 
prophet  had  in  mind  a  sudden  and  powerful  gust  of  wind,  "a  blast 
of  the  breath"  of  the  Almighty  (Ps.  18^"/^^),  but  perhaps  he  alludes 
to  the  superstition  still  current  in  the  East  that  the  breath  may  pro- 
duce a  magical  effect  upon  anything  toward  which  it  is  directed.f 
It  is  not,  however,  necessary,  with  Wellhausen  and  others,  to  sup- 
pose that  Haggai  thought  of  Yahweh  as  actually  using  magic. 
The  expression  used  is  in  effect  a  simile  illustrating  the  surprising 
rapidity  with  which  the  scanty  harvest  disappeared.  See  the 
"leaky  purse"  of  v.  ".  Wherefore?  asks  Yahweh,  and  answers 
his  own  question,  for  the  first  time  expressly  connecting  the  mis- 
fortunes described  with  the  neglect  of  the  temple:  Because  of  my 

*  The  rendering,  /  will  be  gracious  in  it.  is  less  defensible,  since,  if  the  prophet  had  intended 
to  express  this  thought,  he  would  not  have  omitted  the  object  you. 

t  "  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  disagreeable  to  Moslems  if  any  one  whistles  over  a  threshing- 
floor  heaped  with  grain.  Then  comes  the  devil,  they  say,  in  the  night  and  takes  a  part  of  the 
harvest." — L.  Bauer,  in  Millhcilungen  u.  Nachrichlen  des  deulschcn  Palastina-Vercins,  1S99,  9. 


i^-"  49 

house,  that  is  desolate,  or  Because  my  house  is  desolate.  Not  that 
this  state  of  things  would  be  unpardonable  under  any  circum- 
stances. It  is,  however,  to  use  the  words  of  the  text,  while  ye  make 
haste  each  about  his  own  home.  The  complaint  is  the  same  as  in 
V.  4,  but  here  it  seems  to  be  directed  against  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  persons  who,  perhaps  because  they  had  recently  arrived 
in  Jerusalem,  were  engaged  in  providing  themselves  with  dwell- 
ings.— 10.  Therefore — because  his  people  were  more  eager  to 
get  themselves  well  housed  than  to  provide  him  with  a  worthy 
abode — Yahweh  set  in  motion  the  secondary  causes  that  produced 
the  condition  just  described.  Heaven  at  his  command  withheld 
rain.  The  text  has  dew,  but  there  are  good  reasons  for  believing 
that  this  is  a  copyist's  error.  One  of  them  is  that,  although  there 
are  several  passages  in  which  the  dew  is  described  as  refreshing  the 
earth  and  vegetation  (Dt.  33^^-  Gn.  27^^-  ^^),  there  is  no  other  in 
which  the  suspension  of  this  phenomenon  alone  is  represented  as 
producing  a  drought.  On  the  other  hand,  the  production  of  a 
drought  by  withholding  rain  is  repeatedly  threatened  or  recorded. 
Cf.  Dt.  u*'  I  K.  8^,  but  especially  Am.  4^.*  If  in  this  case  it  was 
the  rain  that  was  withheld  in  great  measure,  it  is  not  strange  that 
the  earth  withheld  its  produce.  The  rainfall  of  Palestine  has  always 
been  irregular  and  unreliable.  It  is  almost  entirely  confined  to 
the  months  from  November  to  April  inclusive,  but  it  varies  greatly 
from  year  to  year  in  amoimt  as  well  as  in  its  distribution  through 
the  rainy  season.  The  lowest  figures  for  the  years  from  1861  to 
1880,  for  example,  were  13.39  inches,  and  the  highest  32.21  inches, 
the  average  being  23.32  inches.f  Whenever  the  amoimt  threatens 
to  fall  below  25  inches  the  people  become  apprehensive;  if  it  falls 
below  20  inches,  they  expect  to  suffer;  and  if,  as  was  the  case  in 
1864-66,  there  is  a  shortage  for  two  or  three  years  in  succession, 
many  of  them  are  forced,  like  the  patriarch,  to  migrate  or  starve. 
— ^11.  The  rainfall  varies,  also,  for  different  parts  of  the  country, 
sometimes  to  the  extent  of  several  inches.  Amos,  in  the  passage 
above  cited,  tells  of  cases  in  which  it  rained  upon  one  city  and  not 

*  For  other  reasons  for  the  emendation  proposed,  see  the  critical  notes. 
t  DB.,  art.  Rain ;  where,  however,  the  average  rainfall  for  the  period  is  incorrectly  given  as 
"about  20  inches." 


5©  HAGGAI 

at  all  upon  another,  or  even  upon  one  of  two  adjoining  fields.  The 
drought*  to  which  Haggai  here  refers  was  summoned  upon  the 
earth.  That  is,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  the  ground.  The 
phrase,  even  upon  the  mountains,  which  follows,  might  be  inter- 
preted as  meaning  the  more  elevated  parts  of  the  country,  where 
ordinarily  the  rainfall  is  heaviest;!  but  it  is  probably  here,  as  in 
Ez.  33^^  a  more  exact  designation  for  the  Holy  Land  as  a  whole. 
On  its  genuineness,  see  the  critical  notes.  The  grain,  the  mustX 
and  the  oil  were  then,  as  they  still  are,  the  principal  crops.  Cf. 
Dt.  ii"  i8*,  etc.  The  drought  not  only  afi'ected  these  but  all  that 
the  soil  produced,  thus  robbing  men  and  cattle  of  cUl  the  labour  of 
their  hands,  the  results  that  are  desired  and  expected  from  tiUing 
and  sowing  the  ground  and  tending  the  orchards  and  vineyards,  § 

1.  a>n;y  njub]  For  n'ju-n  nju-3.  Cf.  Gn.  47";  Nrd.  ^  ^*^-  "  ».— 
nns  0V3]  The  word  dv,  for  which  (H  &  have  no  equivalent,  is  prob- 
ably a  later  addition.  Cf.  2'  •  '<>•  -'>,  where  it  is  omitted.  The  later  idiom 
occurs  also  in  v.  '=.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "4-  *K — K^jn]  (B  adds  \^yiov  'EittJv, 
Sm.  accordingly  inserts  "icN  idnS.  So  also  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  Wrongly, 
for  these  reasons:  (i)  This  reading  is  not  supported  by  the  other  great 
Vrss.  (2)  The  added  words,  as  Bu.  (ZAIV.,  1906,  7  ff.)  has  shown, 
are  unsuitable  with  i^3,  which  requires  that  the  agent  be  immediately 
followed,  as  in  the  present  text,  by  Sn  with  the  names  or  titles  of  the  per- 
sons for  whom  the  message  is  intended.  Otherwise  the  agent  is  made  to 
address  himself,  saying,  say,  etc.  This,  to  be  sure,  is  what  he  does  in  2'; 
but  only  because  in  that  passage  T'2  has  been  substituted  for  Sn  to  bring 
it  into  harmony  with  this  one.  If  Ss  be  restored,  the  two  passages  will 
represent  two  ways  of  describing  the  transmission  of  a  divinely  inspired 
message;  in  one  of  which  Yahweh  speaks  by  or  through  the  prophet  to 
others  (i'),  while  in  the  other  he  says  to  the  former  what  he  wishes  him  to 
communicate  to  the  latter  (2>).  The  adoption  of  (S's  reading  in  this 
case  would  require  the  change  of  lo  to  Sn;  but  if  this  change  were  made 
it  would  be  impossible  to  explain  how  no,  which  is  an  error  for  Sn  in  2'o 
as  well  as  in  2 ',  found  its  way  into  either  of  these  passages.    It  seems  nec- 

*  The  prophet  here  indulges  in  paronomasia.  The  offence  consisted  in  permitting  the 
house  of  Yahweh  to  lie  2"^  (harebh),  the  penalty  is  3^^  (Iiorebh).  It  is  as  if  one  said  io 
English,  Because  the  temple  was  a  ruin,  the  land  was  denied  rain. 

i  ZDPV.,  xxx\\,8of}. 

t  On  the  distinction  between  must  and  wine,  sec  Mi.  6''.  The  former  is  only  potentially 
intoxicating  or  injurious.     C/.  Ju.  9''  Ho.  4",  and,  on  the  latter  passage,  Marti. 

§  That  the  labour  is  the  labour  of  the  cattle  as  well  as  their  owners  appears  from  the  fact 
that  the  word  rjj  (kaph)  means  not  only  the  human  palm  but  the  sole  of  the  foot  of  a  man  or  an 
animal. 


essary,  therefore,  to  reject  the  emendation  proposed. — Saant]  Written 
also,  and  frequently,  S^anr. — nno]  Assy,  pahatu,  or  more  fully,  bel  pa- 
hati,  lord  of  a  district.  <S,  here  and  in  vv.  '2.  n  a'"-  21,  has  iK  (pvXijs,  the 
translators  apparendy  taking  nno  for  the  equivalent  of,  or  an  abbrevia- 
tion for,  nnflU'DS.  So  &". — 2.  icn]  Lit.,  hath  said,  but,  since  the  mes- 
sage is  now  first  delivered,  it  may  properly  be  rendered  saith.  Cf.  Ges. 
§  106.  2_ — 'iji  py  }<3  njy  f<V]  The  text  as  it  stands  is  not  unintelligible.  It 
would  naturally  be  rendered.  It  is  not  a  time  to  come,  the  time,  etc.  So 
Marck,  Koh.,  Klo.  Many,  however,  regard  this  as  unnatural.  The 
emendations  suggested  are  of  three  classes.  In  one  the  consonants  of  the 
present  text  are  retained  but  the  vocalisation  changed.  Thus,  some  rd., 
with  AV.,  N3  for  n3,  i.  e.,  The  time  is  not  co^ne,  the  time,  etc.  So  Dru.,  Hd. 
Others  change  !<3-ny.  to  N3  nj?,  producing.  Not  now  is  the  time  come,  etc. 
So  Hi.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  Neither  of  these  suggestions  can  be  pronounced 
indefensible.  In  the  former,  however,  if  the  first  ny  were  the  subject  of 
N3,  it  would  naturally  have  the  article,  as  in  Ez.  7'-  '^  while  in  the  latter 
n3;=nn3?  seems  superfluous.  A  second  method  of  improving  the  text 
involves  consonantal  changes.  Thus,  Oort  reads  'ui  ny.  nd  ip  nV,  The 
time  is  not  yet  come,  etc.,  and  Andre  'ui  PN  N3-nx.  nS,  the  latter  simply 
eliminating  the  second  nj.";  but  for  not  yet  Haggai  uses  nS  iy  (2^^),  and 
as  for  Andre's  device,  it  does  not  touch  the  real  difficulty.  The  objec- 
tions noted  do  not  lie  against  a  third  method,  the  omission  of  the  first  r>' 
and  the  substitution  of  n3  for  K3.  The  result  is  a  simple,  straightfor- 
ward text  meaning.  The  time  is  not  come,  etc.,  which,  moreover,  has  the 
support  of  the  Vrss.  The  case,  then,  is  apparently  one  of  dittog.  occasioned 
by  the  resemblance  between  sa  and  no. — nin>  p^a]  A  case  of  attrac- 
tion. For  the  regular  construction,  see  Gn.  29';  K6.  ^  "*  °. — 3.  Hi.  ex- 
plains this  verse  as  a  device  to  remedy  the  clumsiness  of  the  prophet  in 
citing  (v.  2)  the  words  of  the  people  instead  of  those  of  the  prophet.  Bu. 
replies,  and  justly,  that  the  clumsiness  is  all  in  this  verse,  which  he  there- 
fore rejects  as  ungenuine.  Cf.  ZAW.,  1906,  10.  Contra,  Hi.,  Now., 
Marti,  And.  It  was  doubtless  inserted  by  some  one  who,  like  Ki., 
interpreted  what  follows  as  a  message  to  the  people  as  distinguished 
from  their  leaders.  The  phraseology  (10)  was  borrowed  from  v.  >. — 
4.  ohn]  Emphatic.  Cf.  Gn.  2734  Zc.  75;  Ges.  ^  "s-  2  <o.  Houb.  rd. 
nPN.— a3>n3]  So  (S^  ^;  but  (§*«  E  H  ul  appear  to  have  had  o^na. 
The  adoption  of  the  latter  reading  makes  an  explanation  of  the  omission 
of  the  article  before  the  adj.  following  unnecessary.  For  the  opposite 
view,  cf.  Ges.  ^  "»•  ^  <*>;  K6.  ^  ^'^i, — nrnn^an]  (S^,  oIkos  ifiuv,  but  M 
is  supported  by  (gf*AQL  ;g  ^,  Qn  the  construction  with  1,  cf.  Ges.  ^  "t- « 
<">. — 5.  0222^]  For  ason'^.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  '^-  2  (o. — 6.  N3ni]  Inf.  abs.  in 
continuation  of  the  finite  construction.  Cf.  Ges.  5  113.  4  <«). — oj-'d]  In 
pause,  with  a  lighter  distinctive,  Ges.  529. 4. — njrarS]  On  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing fem.  inf.,  cf.  Ges.  ^  «•  •  <*';  Bo.  5s«-  *  ^. — onS]  Many  mss.  and 


52  HAGGAI 

edd.  rd.  Din*^. — i"^]  Indef.  after  an  impersonal  vb.  Cf.  i  K.  i' ;  Ges. 
\  '"•  2;  K6.  5  324  e_^3niyn]  Kenn.  150  rd.  -i3nu->.  SoAnd.,  Bu.  The 
use  of  the  prtc.  in  &  SI  favours  iK. — 7.  This  verse  has  received  special 
attention  from  recent  critics.  We.,  who  is  followed  by  Now.,  Marti, 
om.  the  latter  half  of  it.  The  reason  given  is  that  the  expression  used 
is  not  applicable  except  to  past  action  or  experience;  but  in  2 '6.  is  prac- 
tically the  same  expression  is  clearly  used,  first  of  the  past  and  then  of  the 
future,  just  as,  on  the  supposition  that  this  verse  is  genuine,  it  is  in  this 
section.  It  has  also  been  proposed  to  relieve  the  difficulty  with  the  pres- 
ent text  by  rearranging  it.  Thus,  Van  H.  transposes  vv.  '  and  ',  while 
Bu.  inserts  the  latter  after  v.  ".  The  objection  to  these  devices  is  that 
they  both  leave  v.  '  meaningless  and  indefensible.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  present  arrangement  is  preserved,  the  relation  of  w.  '  '•  to  their  con- 
text will  furnish  a  striking  parallel  to  that  of  vv.  24  f .  of  Am.  5  to  theirs. — 
8.  h'il  (S^c-bAQ^  avd^-qre  iiTv  =  Sjj  1^',  the  reading  of  Kenn.  i;  yet  not 
necessarily,  since  iirl,  like  iis,  in  (5  sometimes  represents  the  ace.  Cf.  Ex. 
I?'"  Dt.  3". — DPNani]  (g  Kal  K6\f/aT€  (.x,  Kdfere);  £,  et  cadite  =  onN"i3\ 
<8^  adds  Kal  ofa-are  making  ansoni  dpnidi,  a  reading  which  is  favoured 
by  Bu.,  but  should  be  explained  as  one  of  the  numerous  cases  in  (15  in 
which  a  second  rendering  based  on  M  has  been  added  to  the  original 
translation.  This  original  rendering,  on  the  other  hand,  since  it  is  easier 
to  mistake  oriNia  for  onNan  than  onxan  for  onNia,  probably  repro- 
duces the  genuine  Hebrew  text.  Cf.  Jos.  ij^^. — nx^xi]  Bo.,  ^  '*«•  '  ", 
rd.  nxiNi. — 133N1]  Qr.  masNi.  Kt.  is  explained  by  the  n  following. 
Cf.  Zc.  I' ;  Bo.  ^'"  s.  The  Jews  saw  in  the  omission  of  the  n  (5)  a 
reminder  that,  as  Ra.  puts  it,  "there  are  five  things  that  were  in  the  first 
sanctuary,  but  not  in  the  second,  viz.,  the  ark,  urim  and  tummim,  the  fire, 
the  shekinah,  and  the  Holy  Spirit."  Houb.  would  supply  n. — -cin] 
The  first  of  three  cases  in  the  book  in  which  this  word  is  used  instead  of 
DNj.  Cf.  2'-  9.  There  are  only  three  more  in  Zc.  1-8,  1=  7'^  8'<.  In 
Mai.,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  so  frequent  (22  t.)  as  compared  with  dnj 
(once),  that  it  may  be  reckoned  one  of  the  prominent  characteristics  of 
that  book.  Now,  it  can  be  shown  that  in  2'-  '  the  clauses  in  which  this 
word  is  used  are  interpolations.  It  seems  fair,  therefore,  to  conclude  that 
the  same  is  true  in  this  case,  unless  idn  is  here  simply  a  mistake  for  dnj. 
— 9.  njo]  The  recurrence  of  the  inf.  abs.  does  not  necessarily  indicate  an 
immediate  connection  between  this  verse  and  v.  ^,  since  this  form  of  the 
vb.  may  also  begin  a  new  paragraph.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "'•  *  <*>  <*>.  Houbi- 
gant  rd.  PiB. — njni]  ^  &  21  rd.  as  if  the  original  had  been  rrrn  ((8^^ 
vni),  and  this  reading  is  said  to  be  required  if  the  '?  following  be  re- 
tained in  the  text.  So  Dru.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, from  Gn.  18'  that  njn  can  properly  be  employed  in  place  of  the 
vb.  even  before  a  preposition.  Cf.  alsoB;  Ges.  §'<'-2. — anNam]  Note 
the  tense.    The  pf.  with  1  is  often  used  in  the  course  of  a  narrative  to  in- 


troduce  a  customary  or  repeated  action.  Cf.  i  S.  i^.  When,  as  in  this 
case,  there  are  two  such  verbs,  the  first  may  be  subordinate  to  the  second, 
denoting  an  act  done  while  another  was  in  progress.  CJ.i  S.  27',  but  es- 
pecially Am.  72-  ^ff-;  Ges.  ^  "2-  "  '«''.  So  Hi.,  Ew.;  contra,  Koh.,  We., 
Now. — HD  it'i  d,  5ia  TovTo;  an  error,  but  in  the  right  direction.  The 
vocalisation  of  nc  is  best  explained,  not  as  due  to  the  preceding  prep., 
Koh.,  or,  more  specifically,  to  dissimilation,  Ko.,  i,  ^  ^^-  ^''^  7.  but  to 
the  distance  of  the  word  from  the  principal  accent.  CJ.  Ges.  ^".1  (c). 
For  clearer  cases  of  dissimilation,  cf.  Gn.  4'"  Zc.  7^. — nit<3s]  Om.  §b. — 
ipu  jy]  A  construction  chosen  for  the  sake  of  emphasising  the  subj. 
The  introduction  of  Nin  after  the  relative  further  enhances  the  desired 
effect.  Cf.  Ko.  ^  «" ;  Dr.  ^  •". — aix-i]  cx^  with  a  (Marti)  is  less,  and 
D''S-(.n  (Che.)  no  more,  expressive. — 10.  ds^Sj?  p '^p]  So  B;  but  §  om. 
J3  Sj,',  (S  21  ao'''^y.  The  last  is  evidently  the  original  reading,  p  '7y 
being  natural  and  necessary,  while  DO''S',  whether  rendered  over  you  or 
on  your  account,  is  superfluous.  The  latter's  position  indicates  that  it  is 
either  an  imperfect  dittog.,  We.,  or  a  gloss  on  the  conj.  ul  expands 
it  into  p3^3in  Sna,  on  account  of  your  sins. — a''Dr]  Rd.,  with  Kenn. 
150  and  05,  DTB'n.  Cf.  fisn. — Soo  The  text  has  its  defenders,  some 
treating  D  as  partitive  (Ew.,  And.),  others  as  privative,  de  D.,  Koh., 
Now. ;  but  the  later  authorities  mostly  incline  to  emend  it.  The  readings 
suggested,  San,  W'e.,  and,  as  in  Zc.  8'2,  oha  Bu.,  Now.,  Marti,  are  gram- 
matically defensible,  but  there  is  no  positive  evidence  for  either  of  them. 
A  better  one  was  long  ago  suggested  by  Dru.,  viz.,  nan,  rain,  which  has 
the  support  of  QI,  needs  neither  art.  nor  sf.  and,  moreover,  suits  the  He- 
brew way  of  thinking.  V.  Com. — 11.  3in]  (B  po/x(paiav;  31,  gladium;  a 
mistake  so  natural  that  it  has  no  critical  significance. — annn  ^1^\  Of 
doubtful  genuineness.  Om.  Kenn.  150  and  a  few  Gr.  curs.  31.  V. 
Com. — ■\vh\  Rd.,  with  30  mss.,  (&^  ^  (3,  ic'n  Sa.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti. 
— a''D3]  Rd.,  with  d  31  &,  aniao.  So  Bu.,  Now.,  Marti. — Bu.  finds  the 
conclusion  of  this  prophecy  abrupt.  He  concludes,  therefore,  that  it 
must  originally  have  been  supplemented  by  another  exhortation  to  re- 
build the  temple  and,  in  addition,  a  corresponding  promise.  Of  the  lat- 
ter he  thinks  v.  "b  a  fragment. 


b.      THE  RESPONSE  OF  THE  PEOPLE  (l^^*^*). 

The  leaders,  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  and  all  the  people,  being 
impressed  by  Haggai's  message  and  especially  assured  of  Yahv^eh's 
assistance  in  any  effort  they  may  make,  are  encouraged  to  begin 
work;  which  they  do  within  a  few  days  of  the  date  of  the  prophet's 
first  recorded  appearance,  ♦ 


54  HAGGAI 

12.  Then  hearkened,  listened  with  attention,  interest  and  sub- 
mission, Zeruhbahel  .  .  .  and  Joshua.  There  has  been  no  further 
reference  to  them  since  they  were  introduced  in  v.  *,  the  prophet's 
whole  discourse  having  been  directed  over  their  heads  to  the  people. 
Perhaps  these  leaders  had  already  been  won  for  the  project  of 
rebuilding  the  temple  before  Haggai  appealed  to  the  people.  In- 
deed, it  is  not  impossible  that  they  originated  it,  the  prophet  acting 
as  their  ally  and  mouthpiece  in  securing  for  it  popular  approval  and 
necessary  assistance.  However  that  may  be,  all  the  rest  of  the  people 
now  recognised  the  voice  of  Yahweh  their  God  in  the  words  of  Hag- 
gai. Kosters,  seeing  in  the  rest  the  remnant  of  the  population  left 
in  the  land  by  Nebuchadrezzar  "to  be  vinedressers  and  husband- 
men," uses  this  passage  to  prove  that  no  great  number  had  at  the 
time  returned  from  captivity.  It  is  more  natural,  however,  to 
suppose  that  the  writer  here  and  in  2^  has  in  mind  the  people  as 
distinguished  from  the  leaders  just  mentioned.  If  he  thinks  of 
them  as  a  remnant,  it  is  because  they,  the  actual  inhabitants  of 
the  country,  mthout  reference  to  the  question  whether  they  have 
ever  been  in  Babylonia  or  not,  are  few  in  number  compared  with  the 
earlier  population.  In  either  case  the  same  persons  are  meant  who 
in  v.  "  are  called  the  people,  and  in  2*  the  people  of  the  land.  The 
voice  here  takes  the  place  of  the  more  common  word  of  Yahweh. 
Both  are  distinguished  from  the  words  of  the  prophets,  who,  al- 
though they  claimed  to  be  moved  by  the  divine  Spirit,  are  careful 
not  to  make  Yahweh  responsible  for  the  details  of  their  messages. 
Cf.  Je.  i^  ^•.*  In  this  case  the  people  listened  ^nd  feared  before 
Yahweh,  took  a  reverential  attitude  toward  him,  the  first  step  in  a 
new  experience. — 13.  Haggai's  vivid  review  of  the  situation  in 
Judah,  and  his  insistence  that  it  was  the  fault  of  the  people  them- 
selves that  they  were  not  more  prosperous,  naturally  disposed  them 
to  do  something;  but  there  were  obstacles,  of  which,  as  one  may 
infer  from  2^  ^•,  the  most  serious  was  their  povert)'.  This  being  the 
case,  one  would  expect  that  the  next  thing  would  be  a  note  of  en- 
couragement. It  is  forthcoming,  but  whether  this  verse  belongs 
to  the  original  book,  or  was  supplied  by  a  reader  who  felt  that  some- 
thing had  been  omitted,  is  disputed.     There  is  room  for  two  opin- 

*  In  Am.  8"  the  pi.  words  is  a  mistake  for  the  sg.     Cj.  v.  '-  and  \'rss. 


ions.  In  the  first  place,  Haggai  is  here  called,  not  "the  prophet," 
as  in  every  previous  case  in  which  his  name  has  been  mentioned 
(w.  ^ •  ^*  ^^) ,  but  the  messenger  {angel)  of  Yahweh.  This  is  not  a  rare 
title.  In  fact,  it  is  quite  common,  especially  in  the  earlier  por- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament.  Cf.  Gn.  i6^,  et  pas.  Regularly,  how- 
ever, like  the  rarer  "messenger  of  God,"  it  denotes,  as  may  be 
learned  from  Is.  63^,  the  manifestation  of  the  personal  presence 
of  the  Deity.  It  is  therefore  often  but  a  paraphrase  of  one  of  the 
divine  names.*  The  same  interpretation  must  be  given  to  "my 
messenger"  and  "his  messenger,"  except  in  one  instance  (Is.  42"), 
where  "my  messenger"  evidently  means  Israel  as  a  prophetic  peo- 
ple. This  exception  is  interesting  as  indicating  that  as  early  as 
the  Exile,  if  not  before  it,  the  title  "messenger  of  Yahweh"  had 
acquired  a  human,  as  well  as  a  divine,  connotation,  while  Mai.  2^ 
furnishes  a  concrete  example  of  this  broader  usage,  for  there  the 
priest  is  expressly  called  "the  messenger  of  Yahweh  of  Hosts." 
It  must  therefore  be  admitted  that  the  compiler  of  the  prophe- 
cies of  Haggai  might,  without  exciting  comment,  have  called  the 
prophet  the  messenger  of  Yahweh.  Still,  it  is  not  probable  that, 
having  adopted  the  title  heretofore  used,  he  would,  without  ap- 
parent reason,  have  employed  another  so  strikingly  different.  It 
seems  safe,  therefore,  to  conclude  that  the  whole  verse  is  an  inter- 
polation.f — ^14.  The  special  message  brought  by  the  prophet  had 
the  desired  effect.  Yahweh  thereby  aroused — the  word  is  the  same 
that  is  used  in  the  cases  of  Cyrus  and  others  (Is.  42^  Je.  50^  Ezr.  i^^), 
whom  Yahweh  is  represented  as  having  chosen  to  execute  his  pur- 
poses— the  spirit  of  ZerubbabeljWho  is  here  again  called  governor  to 
emphasise  the  importance  to  the  Jews  of  having  the  enthusiastic 
support  of  the  civil  head  of  the  community  in  their  enterprise. 
For  the  same  reason  Joshua  is  given  his  title,  the  high  priest,  in 
this  connection.  The  people  also  were  stirred,  all  of  them,  so 
that  they  came  with  their  leaders  and  did  work,  gave  effect  to  their 
zeal  in  service,  on  the  house  of  Yahweh.X    The  idiom  here  em- 

*  C/.  Zc.  128 ;  Davidson,  Theol.,  296  ff. ;  Piepenbring,  TheoL,  144  jf. 

t  Jer.  notes  the  fact  that  some  had  interpreted  this  passage  as  teaching  that  Haggai  was  an 
angel,  but  he  himself  interprets  the  title  given  to  him  as  a  synonym  for  "  prophet." 

X  Calvin  finds  in  this  passage  support  for  his  doctrine  of  the  will.  God,  he  says,  did  not 
merely  confirm  a  free  volition,  but  produced  the  "willing  mind"  among  the  people. 


56  HAGGAI 

ployed  does  not  imply  that  the  temple  was  already  partly  built,  or 
even  that  the  foundations  had  been  laid.  The  preposition  ren- 
dered on  is  the  same  that  is  found  in  Zc.  6^^,  where  the  English 
version  has  m.  This  is  the  literal  meaning,  but  the  particle  is 
frequently  used  in  constructions  in  which  but  a  part  of  the  object 
is  affected,*  and  both  of  these  are  constructions  of  this  sort. 
Hence  the  passage  in  Zechariah  may  be  rendered,  "they  shall  build 
on  the  temple,"  or,  more  freely,  "they  shall  take  part  in  the 
building  of  the  temple";  while  this  one  may  be  translated  as  above 
or  paraphrased  so  that  it  will  more  clearly  include  such  operations 
as  the  removal  of  debris  from  the  site  or  the  accumulation  of  the 
required  materials.f  Indeed,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  a  date  im- 
mediately follows,  it  would  seem  allowable  to  suppose  that  the 
writer  intended  to  say  that  they  began  work  on  the  house  on  the 
day  specified. — ^15.  The  date  given  is  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the 
month.  It  was  therefore  only  twenty-three  days  after  Haggai's 
exhortation  when  the  people  responded  to  his  summons;  which 
was  perhaps  as  early  as  they  could  have  been  expected  to  commence 
operations.  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  date,  see  the  textual 
notes. 

12 .  Baer  makes  no  break,  but  there  is  ms.  authority  for  beginning  here 
a  new  section.  Cf.  Gins.,  Int.,  17. — vcu'm]  Koh.  prefers  n:r'i;'"'i,  but  it 
would  anticipate  v.  ".  On  the  construction  with  3,  cf.  Ges.  5'"  «*>  <2). 
— Sxip'^r]  Here  and  in  v.  "  2"  some  mss.  have  the  full  form. — Add,  with 
<J6  C,  the  title  min>  nno,  as  elsewhere,  except  in  2",  where  it  would  not 
be  in  place.  Cf.  vv.  >•  '*  2"^-  21. — Si'i]  &  ul  have  '^,  C6  U  the  same  con- 
struction as  for  3.  The  original  must  have  been  ':'ni,  for  which  '^j'l  is  a 
frequent  mistake  of  copyists  in  the  later  books,  and  one  easily  made  after 
writing  it  eight  times  in  v.  ".  Cf.  2  K.  18"  Is.  36'=. — iCvVd]  So  (6 EH QI, 
while  &  omits  the  prep.  So  also  10  Heb.  mss.  Cf.  2  K.  19^  This  pas- 
sage is  noted  in  the  Mas.  as  one  of  twelve  in  which  t>:'n3  =  nr.N;  which 
means  that  it  is  a  rare  and  perhaps  a  corrupt  reading. — dh^h^n^]  Hi., 
We.,  Marti  rd.  on^Sx;  but  the  recurrence  of  Yahweh  seems  to  require  the 
repetition  of  oninSs.  Cf.  Ne.  9'.  If,  therefore,  as  Now.  claims,  dh'Sn  is 
even  more  essential,  it  follows  that  the  original  must  have  been  an>nSN 
BH^'^N,  which  is  actually  found  in  5  mss.  and  reproduced  in  the  Vrss.  Cf. 
Je.  43'.  The  omission  of  dh^'^n  is  easily  explained  as  a  case  of  haplog. 
— 13.  This  verse,  whose  genuineness  seems  to  have  been  seriously  ques- 
*  BDB.,  art.  3,  I,  2,  b.  t  So  Ki.,  Dru.,  Grotius,  Koh.,  Wo. 


I  57 

tioned  first  by  Boh.  {ZAW.,  1887,  215/.),  is  now  generally  treated  as  an 
interpolation.  Ko.  (Einl.,  363),  however,  defends  it,  and  Bu.  (ZAW., 
1906,  13),  as  already  noted,  recognises  in  v.""  a  fragment  of  the  lost  (?) 
conclusion  of  w.  '".  Cf.  note  on  v.  ".  The  reasons  for  the  prevailing 
opinion  are:  (i)  It  disturbs,  without  reinforcing,  the  narrative.  (2)  It  is 
not  in  the  manner  of  the  compiler  of  the  book.  See  nin<  ikSd  for 
N^ajn  ii-  12  2i-  «o-  20  «S'  and  oyS  for  oyn  Vn  i«  2",  etc.  (3)  The  words 
attributed  to  Yahweh  seem  inconsistent  with  the  situation.  Cf.  Com. 
— nin>  pidnSdj]  Om.  (gAQmg.  g,H^  jf  [^  jg  by  t^e  same  hand  as  the 
rest  of  the  verse,  it  only  adds  to  the  evidence  of  ungenuineness.  Houb. 
reads  niaxSna  or  nu  niaNSoa. — idnS  Om.  B. — nin^s]  ^  adds  niN^v. 
— nnc]  Cf.  note  on  i'. — 14.  nn-PNi']  Some  edd.  accent  with  205.  ^a J.; 
but  see  Baer,  Notes,  80;  Wickes,  UFA.,  83. — Dj>n  nnsrS^]  (g  (£13)  tCiv 
KaraXolwwv  iravrbs  toO  XaoO  =  a>n  Sd  ms'tt";  but  05^^  Comp.,  Aid.  om. 
iravrbs;  which,  however,  seems  as  much  in  place  as  in  v.  '^b. — 15.  This 
verse  is  the  first  of  ch.  2  in  (S  21 B  &,  also  in  the  ^  of  the  Comp.,  Ant.,  Par. 
and  Lond.  polyglots,  and  some  separate  edd.  This  arrangement  follows 
the  more  ancient  division  of  the  text  into  sections,  which,  however,  since 
it  brings  together  two  dates  that  conflict  with  each  other  at  the  beginning 
of  the  same  paragraph,  cannot  represent  the  mind  of  the  author.  Nor  is 
the  arrangement  approved  by  the  great  exegetes  Jewish  and  Christian, 
which  is  found  in  M,  more  satisfactory;  for,  as  Bu.  remarks,  "all  that 
follows  •'B'ra  is  a  useless  appendage."  Marti  pronounces  the  whole 
verse  an  accretion,  the  attempt  of  Klo.,  et  al.,  to  account  for  it  as  the  date 
of  a  lost  or  misplaced  prophecy  being  a  failure.  A  hint  of  the  solution  of 
the  question  might  have  been  found  in  RoshHasshanah  (Rodkinson,  B  J'., 
IV,  Part  2, pp. 4/.,  where,  however, for  ii,  10  one  should  read  i,  15),  where 
the  latter  half  of  the  verse  is  cited  as  belonging  to  both  chapters,  and  a 
still  clearer  indication  in  itrco,  a  solecism  that  can  only  be  explained  as 
an  interpolation.  If,  however,  this  word  be  dropped,  the  preceding  clause 
naturally  attaches  itself  to  v.  ",  while  the  one  following  as  naturally  in- 
troduces the  next  chapter.  This  is  the  arrangement  adopted  in  Kittel's 
text,  and  without  doubt  the  correct  one.  It  seems  only  fair  to  state  that 
the  note  on  •<z'ii'2,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  sentence,  was  written 
before  the  second  volume  of  Kittel's  Biblia  Hehraica  appeared. — ora] 
Kit.  and  Now.,  without  ms.  or  other  cited  authority,  rd.  dvd;  but, 
although  the  construction  with  n  after  n3  in  the  sense  of  Snn  is  un- 
doubtedly allowable  (Ezr.  3  6),  that  with  3  is  equally  good  Hebrew.  Cf. 
Ezr.  38  2  Ch.  32. — 'rra]  C6  ?I  have  the  equivalent  of  '■rrn,  but  19  9  (3 
support  M,  and  there  is  no  ms.  authority  for  any  other  reading. 


58  HAGGAI 


§  2.  THE  RESOURCES   OF  THE  BUILDERS  (i'^^-2'>). 

This  prophecy  was  designed  to  meet  an  emergency  arising  from 
the  despondency  that  overtook  the  builders  as  soon  as  they 
realised  the  magnitude  of  their  task  and  the  slenderness  of  their 
resources.  The  prophet  admits  that  they  cannot  hope  to  pro- 
duce anything  like  the  splendid  temple  some  of  them  can  remem- 
ber, but  he  bids  them  one  and  all  take  courage,  since  Yahweh, 
whose  are  all  the  treasures  of  the  earth,  is  \\-ith  them  and  has 
decreed  the  new  sanctuary  a  glorious  future. 

Ii5b_  jj.  would  have  been  sufficient,  in  dating  this  second  proph- 
ecy, to  give  the  month  and  the  day  of  the  month,  but  the  writer 
chose  to  use  here  the  same  formula  as  in  v.  *.  A  scribe,  mistaking 
his  intent,  connected  the  first  item,  In  the  second  year  of  Darius  the 
king,  with  the  preceding  date  of  the  commencement  of  work  on  the 
temple,  and  the  error  has  only  recently  been  discovered.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  read  the  words  quoted  with  2*  to  see  that  such  was  the 
original  connection. — 2^  It  was  in  the  seventh  month,  Tishri,  on 
the  twenty-first  of  the  month,  that  is,  early  in  October,  less  than  a 
month  after  work  on  the  new  temple  was  begun,  that  Haggai  re- 
ceived another  message  from  Yahweh.  The  date  was  well  chosen, 
being  the  seventh  day  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  when  the  people 
were  released  from  labour  and  assembled  at  Jerusalem.  Cf.  Ez. 
45"\ — 2.  He  is  again  directed  to  address  himself  to  Zeruhbabel .  .  . 
and  Joshua,  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  heads  of  the  community, 
but  this  time  he  is  expressly  instructed  to  include  all  the  rest  of  the 
people. — 3.  It  doubtless  cost  a  deal  of  labour,  even  if  the  ancient 
site  had  been  sufficiently  cleared  to  permit  the  reconstruction  of 
the  altar  and  the  resumption  of  sacrifice,  to  remove  the  remaining 
ruins  of  Solomon's  temple  and  its  dependencies.  While  they  were 
thus  occupied  the  Jews  must  more  than  once  have  admired  the 
stones  that  they  were  handling,  and  their  admiration  must  have 
increased  when  the  plan  of  the  original  com])lex  in  its  generous 
dimensions  was  revealed.  This  feeling,  however,  was  succeeded 
by  an  almost  overwhelming  discouragement,  when  they  began  to 
plan  the  new  structure  and  realised  how  unworthy  it  would  be  to 


i*''^-2**  59 

take  the  place  of  the  one  that  preceded  it.  The  disparity  was  most 
keenly  felt  by  a  few  who  were  old  enough — it  had  been  only  sixty- 
seven  years  since  it  was  destroyed — to  have  seen  the  house  of  Yah- 
tveh  in  its  former  wealth.^  It  is  these  aged  men  and  women  who 
are  left,  having  survived  the  lamentable  catastrophe  in  which  the 
kingdom  of  David  was  destroyed,  whom  the  prophet  now  ad- 
dresses. The  wealth  to  which  he  refers  is  not  the  original  glory 
Df  the  national  sanctuary,  for  it  had  been  plundered  more  than 
Dnce  before  any  one  then  living  was  born. 

1.  Those  who  identify  the  Darius  in  whose  reign  Haggai  prophesied  with 
Darius  Nothus  are  obliged  to  interpret  the  first  question  as  implying  that  there 
was  no  one  present  who  had  seen  Solomon's  temple;  which  makes  the  second 
question  meaningless. 

2.  When  Shishak  came  up  "against  Jerusalem"  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam, 
"he  took  away  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  Yahweh"  as  well  as  of  "  the  king's 
house"  (i  K.  1426  (■).  A  century  later,  when  Hazael  threatened  the  capital, 
"  Jehoash  took  all  the  hallowed  things  that  Jehoshaphat,  and  Jehoram,  and 
Ahaziah,  his  fathers,  kings  of  Judah,  had  dedicated,  and  his  own  hallowed 
things,  and  all  the  gold  that  was  found  in  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  Yah- 
wehand  the  king's  house,  and  sent  it  to  Hazael  king  of  Syria."  C/.  2  K.  12"  '  ■• 
Still  later,  Ahaz,  having  become  a  vassal  of  Tiglath-pileser  III,  sacrificed  the 
oxen  that  supported  the  great  sea  in  the  court  of  the  priests  and  other  brazen 
objects  "because  of  the  king  of  Assyria."  Cf.  2  K.  16"  '-.  Finally  Hezekiah, 
to  appease  Sennacherib,  "gave  him  all  the  silver  that  was  found  in  the  house 
of  Yahweh."  Moreover,  "at  that  time  Hezekiah  stripped  the  doors  of  the 
temple  of  Yahweh,  and  the  pillars  that  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  had  over- 
laid, and  gave  (the  gold)  to  the  king  of  Assyria."    Cf.  2  K.  18'^  t.. 

The  reference  is  rather  to  that  which  it  retained  before  Nebu- 
:hadrezzar  took  it  the  first  time  and  doubtless  emptied  its  coffers, 
ilthough  he  spared  some,  at  least,  of  the  sacred  utensils.  Cf.  Je. 
,yi8fF.  'pj^g  statement  of  2  K.  24^^,  to  the  effect  that  the  temple 
.vas  then  completely  stripped,  is  contradicted,  not  only  by  this  pas- 
sage from  Jeremiah,  but  by  2  K.  25^^  ^•.  It  was  then,  however,  in 
;he  last  stage  of  its  history,  still  rich  enough  to  leave  an  impression 
)n  these  old  people  which  made  the  structure  now  begun  seem  but 
I  sorry  imitation.  Haggai,  therefore,  is  only  voicing  their  disap- 
3ointment  when  he  says,  And  how  do  ye  see  it  now?  what  think  ye 
)f  its  successor?  Is  it  not  as  naught  in  your  eyes? — 4.  The  prophet 

*  The  Chronicler  (Ezr.  s'"  S)  has  an  affecting  description  of  their  disappointment  based  on 
bis  passage. 


6o  HAGGAI 

did  not  by  these  questions  intend  to  increase  the  prevailing  dis- 
couragement. They  are  simply  a  rhetorical  device  by  which,  as 
in  i^,  he  sought  to  bring  himself  into  sympathy  with  his  people, 
that  he  might  comfort  them  in  their  unhappy  condition.  It  is 
not  strange,  therefore,  to  find  that  he  has  no  sooner  put  the  ques- 
tions than,  with  the  words  But  now,  he  completely  changes  his 
tone  and  proceeds  to  bid  them  be  strong,  take  courage,  in  spite  of 
the  gloominess  of  the  present  prospect,  and  work,  carry  the  work 
they  have  undertaken  to  completion.  Cf.  i  Ch.  28'"  Ezr.  Io^ 
He  adds  to  the  impressiveness  of  his  exhortation  by  mentioning 
the  leaders,  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua,  by  name,  and  supplements  it 
with  the  assurance,  I  am  with  you,  saith  Yahweh.  For  the  peo- 
ple of  v.^  the  prophet  here  uses  people  of  the  land,  a  phrase  which 
implies,  not,  as  Kosters  claims,  that  there  were  no  returned  cap- 
tives among  them  (117.,  17),  but  that  as  yet  these  persons  were  not 
recognised  as  a  party. — 5.  In  (^  v.  *^  is  immediately  followed  by 
the  words,  and  my  spirit  abideth  in  your  midst.  The  parallelism 
between  the  two  is  complete,  abundantly  warranting  the  conclu- 
sion that  this  was  the  original  relation,  and  that  therefore  the  clause 
which  now  intervenes  is  an  interpolation.  This  opinion  is  con- 
firmed by  the  prosaic  character  of  the  clause  itself,  which  thing  I 
promised  you  when  ye  came  forth  from  Egypt.  The  glossator,  as 
he  read  v.  *^,  was  evidently  reminded  by  the  words  of  Haggai  of 
something  similar  in  the  history  of  the  Exodus,  and  made  this  com- 
ment on  the  edge  of  his  roll;  whence  it  was  afterward,  by  a  copy- 
ist, incorporated  into  the  text.  Cf.  Is.  6^  7^-  "'  ^^  9'^"",  etc.  There 
are  several  passages  any  one  of  which  he  may  have  had  in  mind, 
but,  as  there  is  none  that  corresponds  closely  in  its  phraseology 
to  the  prophet's  statement,  and  the  Jews  have  always  allowed 
themselves  great  liberty  in  the  matter  of  references  to  their  Scrip- 
tures, it  is  hardly  possible  to  identify  the  particular  passage  or 
passages  here  meant.  The  one  that  most  naturally  suggests  it- 
self is  Ex.  33",  but  the  covenant  between  Yahweh  and  his  people 
is  more  prominent  in  Ex.  19^  and  elsewhere.  V.  Ex.  29^^  ^-j 
where  Yahweh  promises  to  dwell  in  the  sanctuary  concerning 
which  and  its  worship  he  has  just  given  directions.  This  would 
strike  a  Jewish  reader  as  a  particularly  appropriate  citation  under 


jl5b_2  9  6l 

the  circumstances.  The  idea  of  the  prophet,  of  course,  was  that 
Yahweh  would  be  present,  not  to  glorify  the  temple,  when  it  was 
completed,  but  to  assist  the  people  in  rebuilding  it,  an  idea  which 
is  simply  repeated  in  the  second  member  of  the  distich.  Here, 
therefore,  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  is  not  an  emanation,  as  often  in 
the  Old  Testament  (Gn.  41'^  Ex.  31'  Ju.  132^  i  S.  16''  i  K.  10'" 
Is.  II-),  but,  like  "the  angel  of  Yahweh,"  a  manifestation  of  his 
personal  presence.* 

6.  Thus  far  the  prophet  has  been  speaking  of  internal  condi- 
tions and  the  means  by  which  they  may  be  improved.  The  people 
are  suffering  from  repeated  failures  of  their  crops.  The  prophet 
explains  the  situation  as  a  penalty  for  neglecting  to  rebuild  the 
ruined  temple.  He  therefore  urges  them  to  restore  the  sanctuary, 
promising  them  the  assistance  of  Yahweh  in  the  undertaking.  At 
this  point  his  vision  is  so  extended  that  he  is  able  to  see  the  new 
structure,  not  only  completed,  but  enriched  beyond  the  fondest 
dreams  of  his  generation.  Yahweh  has  decreed  it,  and  he  wiU  in 
yet  a  little  while  begin  to  put  his  benign  purpose  into  execution. 
Haggai's  idea  seems  to  be  that  there  will  be  a  startling  display  of 
the  divine  omnipotence  in  the  realm  of  nature.  I  will  shake  heaven 
and  earth,  he  represents  Yahweh  as  saying.  The  prophets  all 
believed  in  the  power  of  God  over  the  physical  world.  They  saw 
a  special  manifestation  of  that  power  in  any  unusual  phenomenon, 
and,  when  it  was  destructive,  interpreted  it  as  a  sign  of  Yahweh's 
displeasure.  The  imagery  here  used  was  evidently  suggested  by 
the  storms  that  sometimes  sweep  over  Palestine.  It  is  found  in 
the  very  earliest  Hebrew  literature.  Cf.  Ju.  5^  ^•.  The  earlier 
prophets  adopted  it.  For  fine  examples,  see  Is.  2^^^-  Na.  i^^-. 
The  later  prophets  employed  it  with  other  similar  material  in  their 
pictures  of  the  inauguration  of  the  Messianic  era.  Cf.  Ez.  33*®  ^• 
Is.  13*^  2V*  *^-  Jo.  4/3^^*-,  etc.  The  extravagance  of  some  of 
these  representations  makes  it  probable  that  they  finally  became 
merely  a  literary  form  for  the  assertion  of  the  divine  omnipotence. 
See  the  "visions"  of  these  same  prophets.  The  phrase,  and  the  sea 
and  the  dry  land,  must  be  treated  as  a  gloss  by  a  prosaic  copyist. 

*  Cj.  Ps.  139'r,  but  especially  Is.  6f-^* ;  also  Davidson,  Theol,  125  /. ;  Piepenbring,  Theol., 
156/. 


62  HAGGAI 

This  is  an  improvement  in  more  ways  than  one.  In  the  first 
place,  it  permits  the  transfer  of  the  first  clause  of  v.  '  to  this  one, 
to  form  a  distich  both  members  of  which  receive  additional  sig- 
nificance through  their  union  with  each  other.  The  first  has  al- 
ready been  discussed.  The  second,  yea,  I  will  shake  all  nations, 
introduces  the  ultimate  purpose  of  the  convulsion  predicted, 
namely,  to  humble  the  nations.  These  words  were  uttered  in 
October  520  B.C.  They  cannot,  therefore,  be  taken  as  a  predic- 
tion of  the  uprising  in  the  East  against  Darius; — it  had  begun  in 
the  preceding  year; — but  they  must  be  interpreted  as  indicating 
the  expectation  of  the  prophet  with  reference  to  the  war  then  in 
progress.  He  had  probably  not  yet  heard  of  the  capture  of  Baby- 
lon and  the  energy  that  Darius  was  displaying  in  a  second  cam- 
paign in  Media.  He  therefore,  apparently,  hoped  and  believed 
that  the  conflict  would  result  in  the  disintegration  of  the  Persian 
empire  and  the  complete  liberation  of  the  Jews  as  well  as  the  other 
subject  peoples.  For  a  more  detailed  description  of  the  catastro- 
phe, see  V.  ^^. — 7.  A  second  advantage  from  the  removal  of  the 
first  clause  of  this  verse  to  end  of  v.  ^  is  that  it  loosens  the  con- 
nection between  the  clause  in  question  and  the  following  context. 
It  surely  cannot  have  been  the  idea  of  the  prophet  that  tJie  treasures 
of  all  the  nations  were  to  be  shaken  from  them  like  fruit  from  a  tree. 
Yet  this  is  the  impression  that  one  gets  from  the  text  as  now 
arranged.  Cf.  Nowack,  Make  the  change  proposed,  and  the 
oreak  between  the  verses  will  prevent  such  an  inference  and  per- 
mit the  reader  to  supply  an  imjxjrtant  omission  in  this  brief  out- 
line of  Yahweh's  purpose.  The  prophet,  of  course,  must  have  ex- 
pected that,  after  the  present  convulsion,  the  nations  liberated  by 
it  would  be  so  impressed  by  the  power  of  Yahweh  that  they  would 
recognise  him  as  the  Ruler  of  the  world.  He  knew  that  this  was 
the  oft-avowed  object  of  Yahweh  in  his  government.  Cf.  Is. 
45^-  ^^-  ^  ^-j  etc.  He  therefore  represents  the  Deity  as  saying  that 
the  things  in  which  the  nations  delight  shall  come,  i.  e.,  as  volun- 
tary offerings,  to  the  temple  now  in  process  of  erection,  and  that 
by  this  means  he  will  Jill  this  house  with  wealth.  The  older  com- 
mentators, following  the  Vulgate  {venial  desideraius  cunctis  genti- 
bus),  interpreted  this  verse  as  referring  to  the  Messiah,  citing  the 


incidents  recorded  in  Lk.  2^^-  ^®  as  the  fulfilment  of  Haggai's 
prophecy;*  but  this  interpretation  is  now  generally  abandoned,  for 
it  is  clear  from  v.  ^  that  the  wealth,  or,  as  EV.  has  it,  the  glory,  of 
the  last  clause  is  that  of  silver  and  gold,  and  that  therefore,  as  above 
explained,  it  is  not  a  dehghtful  person,  but  precious  things,  that 
are  destined  to  come  to  the  new  sanctuary.  Cf.  Is.  6o^-  ". — 8. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  Yahweh's  abiUty  to  fulfil  this  promise. 
Mine,  he  says,  is  the  silver,  and  mine  is  the  gold,  i.  e.,  the  whole 
store  of  these  metals,  whether  current  among  men  or  still  hidden 
in  the  bowels  of  the  earth. — 9.  The  offerings  brought  will  be  so 
many  and  valuable  that  the  future  wealth  of  this  house — not,  as 
the  Vulgate  has  it,f  the  wealth  of  this  latter  house — will  be  greater 
than  the  past.  The  expression  this  house  here,  as  in  v.  ^,  means  the 
temple  regarded  as  ha\'ing  a  continuous  existence  (Pres.),  in  spite 
of  its  ruined  or  unfinished  condition.  By  its  past  {former)  wealth, 
therefore,  is  meant  the  wealth  it  possessed  before  it  was  burned. 
Yahweh  promises,  not  only  to  enrich  this  his  abode,  but  to  bless 
Jerusalem.  In  this  place,  he  says,  /  will  grant  prosperity.  The 
word  rendered  prosperity  %  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
sense  of  quiet,  especially  as  opposed  to  the  unrest  of  war.  Thus, 
by  the  Prince  of  Peace  (Is.  <f''),  as  appears  from  Is.  ii*^-,  the 
prophet  doubtless  meant  a  ruler  who  would  introduce  tranquillity. 
Cf.  Ez.  34'^  Is.  32^'  ^•.  It  more  frequently,  however,  signifies 
welfare,  prosperity.  Cf.  Ps.  122^^-.  This  is  the  sense  of  it  in 
the  familiar  salutation,  lit.,  7^  there  prosperity  ?  which  is  translated, 
Is  it  well?  Gn.  29^,  et  pas.,  and  probably  in  the  corresponding 
benediction.  Cf.  i  S.  25^  but  especially  Nu.  6^®.  This  significa- 
tion is  most  noticeable  in  passages  in  which  the  Hebrew  word  is 
used  antithetically.  Cf.  i  S.  20^-  ^'  Is.  45''  Je.  23^^.  Now,  Jere- 
miah in  29",  where  he  foretold  the  return  from  exile,  used  the  word 
in  this  latter  sense,  assuring  his  people  that  Yahweh  was  cherish- 


*  For  an  elaborate  defence  of  this  view,  see  Pusey,  whose  quotation  from  Cicero's  letters  is 
entirely  unwarranted. 

t  So,  also,  Luther,  AV.,  Marck,  Cal.,  Dru.,  Grotius,  Hd.,  Reuss,  And.,  van  H.,  el  al.  This 
would  require  that  innsn  come  bejore,  and  not,  as  in  the  text,  aller  nrn.  Cj.  Ex.  3^,  etc., 
Ges.  §  '*•  5.  In  2  Ch.  i^",  where  the  two  attributives  appear  in  the  reverse  order,  the  text,  a.s 
ope  may  learn  from  <S,  should  be  emended  to  make  it  conform  to  the  rtile. 


64  HAGGAI 

ing  toward  them  "  thoughts  of  welfare,  and  not  of  evil"  in  a  hopeful 
future;  and  this,  in  view  of  the  preceding  references  to  wealth,  is 
probably  the  thought  that  Haggai  here  wishes  to  convey.* 

1.  1^3]  This  form  of  expression  is  not  in  harmony  with  icn  of  v.  •.  If, 
therefore,  the  latter  is  retained,  as  it  must  be  to  account  for  the  \^yuv 
elirbvoi  i'  in  <S,  the  former,  in  spite  of  the  adverse  testimony  of  the  mss. 
and  Vrss.,  must  be  changed  to  Sn,  Cf.  the  notes  on  i';  also  Bu., ZA  ]V., 
1906,  9. — 2.  icn]  Notan  Aram.  impv.  (And.), but  the  regular  Heb.  form 
shortened  (0),  as  usual  before  an  appended  xj,  Cf.  Ju.  i2«  Je.  18",  etc. 
— nno]  Cf.  note  on  i'. — nnsr]  So  ®  B;  but,  since  there  is  no  reason 
why  the  same  formula  should  not  be  used  as  in  i'^-  »,  and  CI  ii  &  actually 
have  it,  it  seems  safe  to  conclude  that  the  original  reading  here  also  was 
nnxr  Sd.  So  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.;  contra,  And. — 3.  nxu-jn]  Om.  <S  C 
Hence,  although  it  has  the  support  of  U  &  QI,  its  genuineness  is  not  un- 
questionable. On  the  art.  cf.  Zc.  76;  Ges.  55  n'-  «  <o  '•  '=  '"•  »  (•)  '.— 
On  na  in  the  sense  of  how,  cf.  On.  44'*  i  S.  10*',  etc. — 4.  The  omission 
of  '^ntiSnc'  |3  is  as  noticeable  as  the  occurrence  of  Snjn  \7\2r\  in  direct 
address;  yet  there  is  no  evidence  to  warrant  the  insertion  of  the  former 
or  the  omission  of  the  latter.  Cf.  v.  2"  Zc.  38.  We.  in  his  translation 
omits  all  but  the  two  names;  inconsistently,  since  in  v.  "  he  retains  p 
S{<\i'?NB',  and  in  Zc.  3'  ^^'Mn  jnon. — To  nin>«  C&^  adds  iravTWKpdTwp= 
niN33f,  and  CB  do  the  same  for  nini*.  On  the  other  hand,  (SN-^b  aq 
"-  omit  the  nwax  that  follows  nin^sj  but  since  the  prophet  seems  to 
have  followed  no  rule  in  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  and  the  verses  con- 
tain many  evident  errors  made  in  translating  or  copying  them,  it  does  not 
seem  safe  in  either  case  to  reject  the  Massoretic  reading.  Cf  v.  ". — 5. 
The  first  half  of  this  verse  is  certainly  a  gloss,  (i)  As  already  explained 
in  the  comments,  it  breaks  the  connection  between  two  clauses  which  were 
evidently  meant  for  a  parallelism.  (2)  No  attempt  to  construe  it  with  the 
context  has  proven  satisfactory.  It  will  not  do  to  make  "*aT  PN  the  obj. 
of  iu'>,  expressedjBjOr understood,  Rosenm.;  for  this  vb.  does  not  need  an 
obj.  (Ezr.  10'  I  Ch.  3'"),  and,  if  it  took  one,  the  thing  commanded  would 
be,  not  the  fulfilment  of  Yahweh's  promises,  but  work  on  the  temple.  It 
is  equally  objectionable  to  couple  "\2T  tn  with  either  djpn,  Marck,  or  'nn, 
Hi.,  Hd.,  Koh.,  since  in  either  case  the  balance  between  the  parallel 
clauses  is  destroyed  and  ^ai  invested  with  an  unnatural  meaning.  (3) 
The  whole  clause  is  wanting  in  <S  (exc.  a  few  curss.)  C  &".  These  rea- 
sons seem  convincing.  When,  however,  the  relation  of  the  clause  to  the 
context  has  been  determined,  there  remains  room  for  difference  of  opin- 
ion about  the  construction  of  "\3i  pn.    Some  would  supply  a  vb.  like  lot, 

♦  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  it  has  a  bearing  on  a  question  that  will  be  found  discussed 
at  length  in  the  textual  notes. 


.15b_ 


65 


Ew.,  others  treat  the  noun  as  an  adverbial  ace,  EV.;  but,  as  there  are 
serious  objections  to  both  of  these  methods  of  disposing  of  it,  the  better 
way  is,  with  de  Dieu,  to  regard  it  as  an  appositive  of  the  preceding  prom- 
ise attracted  into  the  case  of  the  following  rel.  Cf.  Ez.  14";  Ges.  5  "'•  ^• 
'•  ';  also  the  precisely  similar  construction  in  the  Greek  of  Ac.  lo'^ — 6. 
Nin  t2>"D  nnN  niy]  The  text  is  evidently  corrupt.  The  best  explanation 
of  the  present  reading,  We.,  is  that  it  is  the  result  of  the  confusion  of  two 
idioms,  one  of  which  is  represented  by  the  Yet  once  of  d  51  &.  Cf.  Heb. 
1226  f..  The  emendation  proposed  by  We.,  following  Sm.,  however,  is 
not  completely  satisfactory.  The  original,  as  he  suggests,  doubtless  had 
the  idiom  with  b>d.  In  that  case,  however,  it  is  not  enough  to  omit  nnx. 
The  pron.  N^n,  which  refers  to  it,  and  in  fact  has  no  other  function,  must 
also  be  eliminated.  The  original,  then,  must  have  been  t3i?D  li>',  which 
is  regularly  followed  by  1.  CJ.  Ex.  17'',  etc.  That  of  IH  may  be  ex- 
plained by  supposing  that  t:j;D  was  mistaken  for  o;jd  (Ne.  iS^")  by  the 
Greek  translators,  and  that  nnN  with  n-'H  arose  from  an  attempt  to  cor- 
rect m  from  (&  by  the  use  of  the  idiom  of  Ex.  30'",  etc. — a>n  pni 
nainn  pni]  Evidently  a  gloss,  for  (i)  it  not  only  unduly  lengthens  one  of 
the  members  of  a  parallelism,  but  (2)  introduces  details  inconsistent  with 
the  context  which  belong  to  the  field  of  the  later  apocalypses.  Cf.  Jo. 
34f./23of.  Is.  2415-,  etc. — 7.  On  v.'^  v.  Com.— nion]  So  H  §  ul;  but 
(6  51  have  the  pi.,  which  is  also  required  by  ixa.  Hence  the  original 
must  have  been  nicn.  Cf.  Gn.  27'^.  So  Houb.,  Seek.,  New.,  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  Kit.;  but  Che.,  CB.,  suggests  nnjc. — niN3X  mn'"  -icn]  The  rarity 
of  this  form  of  expression  in  Hg.  and  Zc,  as  already  noted  (i '),  excites  sus- 
picion. Here  and  in  v.  ^  the  fact  that  it  disturbs  the  rhythm  is  an  addi- 
tional reason  for  pronouncing  it  an  accretion. — 8.  cnj].  Three  mss., 
Kenn.,  have  icn,  but  in  this  case  it  is  an  error  for  axj. — 9.  non  123 
jnnxn  n?.-i]  H,  gloria  domus  istius  novissimcB.  V.  Com. — mxax  nini  idn] 
Cf.  V. '. — Cl5  adds  at  the  end,  koI  elp-qvriv  ^vxv^  «'s  irepiirolrjcnv  wavTl  t^ 
ktI^ovti,  toO  avaiXTrjaai  rbv  vdov  rovTov=  even  peace  of  soul  unto  preserva- 
tion to  every  one  that  layeth  foundations  to  erect  this  temple  =  ."'"'naS  caj  mSiyi 
ntn  hT^n  PK  DOipS  no^  SdS.  These  words,  however,  cannot  be  a  part 
of  the  original  prophecy.  Jer.  gives  the  reasons  for  rejecting  them  when 
he  characterises  the  passage  as  "superfluous  and  hardly  consistent," 
and  notes  that  they  were  not  regarded  as  genuine  "among  the  Hebrews 
or  by  any  exegete."  The  inconsistency  consists  in  this,  that,  while  the 
thing  predicted  by  Hg.,  as  has  been  shown,  is  prosperity,  that  here 
promised  is  inward  and  spiritual  tranquillity.  It  is  not  probable  that 
the  prophet  went  from  the  one  to  the  other  of  these  conceptions  without 
warning  and  within  the  brief  limits  of  a  single  sentence. 


66  HAGGAI 

§  3.    THE  NEW  ERA  OF  THE  RESTORED 
TEMPLE  (2^<'-^«). 

A  few  weeks  after  Haggai's  second  discourse  there  was  occasion 
for  a  third.  The  people  were  disappointed  that  Yahweh  did  not 
at  once  testify  his  appreciation  of  their  zeal  in  the  restoration  of 
his  sanctuary.  The  prophet,  after  an  illustration  calculated  to 
show  them  the  unreasonableness  of  the  complaint,  promises  that 
henceforth  they  shall  see  a  difference. 

10.  It  was  the  twenty-fourth  oj  ilie  ninth  month,  that  is,  in  De- 
cember, a  little  more  than  two  months  from  the  preceding  date, 
when  Haggai  was  again  moved  to  address  his  people.  The  date  is 
not  that  of  any  of  the  regular  festivals.  Nor  is  there  ground  for 
supposing,  with  Andre,  that  it  was  an  occasion  for  special  offerings; 
certainly  not  in  v.  ",  for  the  sacrifices  there  mentioned  belong,  not 
to  the  date  of  the  prophecy,  but  to  a  preceding  period. — 11.  This 
time  also  he  begins  abruptly,  as  if  interrupting  an  opponent, 
leaving  the  reader  to  imagine  what  had  given  rise  to  the  discussion, 
and  what  had  previously  been  said  by  each  of  the  disputants. 
The  general  situation  can  readily  be  conceived.  The  people,  if 
they  had  been  stimulated  to  renewed  activity  in  their  work  on  the 
temple  by  the  inspiring  picture  of  its  future  glory  which  the 
prophet  had  presented  to  them,  were  again  beginning  to  lose  in- 
terest in  the  enterprise.  From  the  first  utterance  of  Zechariah 
(i*  ^•),  who  had  meanwhile  begun  his  career,  it  appears  that  some, 
at  least,  among  them  were  not  in  a  condition  to  appreciate  the  re- 
ligious significance  of  the  new  sanctuary.  The  excuse  that  all 
gave  for  their  indifference  or  discouragement  seems  to  have  been 
that,  although  it  had  now  been  three  months  since  they  began  oper- 
ations, Yahweh  had  as  yet  given  them  no  token  of  his  approval. 
This  seemed  to  them  unjust,  but  Yahweh,  speaking  through  the 
prophet,  defends  himself,  using  an  illustration  that  his  hearers 
would  readily  understand.  He  takes  it  from  the  sphere  of  cere- 
monial, concerning  which  one  would  naturally  ask  the  priests  for 
instruction.  Cf.  Zc.  f^-  Lv.  io'°^-.  The  fact  that  the  matter  is 
referred  to  them  shows,  as  Wellhausen  observes,  that  the  fountain 


210-19  67 

from  which  flowed  much  of  the  Pentateuch  was  in  Haggai's  time 
still  open. — 12.  The  case  is  a  hypothetical  one:  If  a  man,  not  nec- 
essarily a  priest,  carry  holy  flesh,  flesh  that  has  been  offered  to 
Yahweh  (Je.  ii^^),*  in  the  skirt  of  his  robe,  which,  if  not  already 
holy,  is  thereby  rendered  holy  (Lv.  6^^'^"),  and  touch  with  his  skirt, 
not  with  the  flesh  in  it,  bread,  etc.,  not  yet  offered.  The  question 
is  whether  in  such  a  case  the  food  so  touched  will  become  holy.  In 
other  words,  is  the  holiness  imparted  by  a  sacred  object  to  another 
transmitted  by  this  second  object  to  a  third,  when  the  last  two  are 
brought  into  contact?  Thus  far  the  command  of  Yahweh  to 
Haggai.  Cf.  v.  ^''.  For  completeness'  sake  it  should  be  followed 
by  a  statement  that  the  prophet,  thus  instructed,  put  the  pre- 
scribed question  to  the  priests;  for  it  was  the  prophet,  and  not 
Yahweh,  to  whom  the  priests  answered  and  said.  No.  There  was 
a  reason,  and  a  good  one,  for  this  decision,  but,  since  the  prophet 
omits  it,  and  it  has  no  importance  in  the  present  connection,  it 
does  not  deserve  special  attention. — 13.  The  lesson  Haggai  wished 
to  teach  has  two  sides  to  it.  His  first  question  was  meant  to  throw 
light  upon  the  negative  side.  He  proceeds  to  illustrate  the  posi- 
tive by  a  corresponding  question:  If  one  unclean  from  contact  with, 
or  proximity  to,  a  dead  person,  lit.,  a  soul,'\  touch  any  of  these,  will 
it,  the  bread  or  other  food,  become  unclean  ?  To  this  the  priests 
reply,  It  will  become  unclean.  Cf.  Nu.  19^^.  In  other  words, 
uncleanness  imparted  to  a  given  person  or  object  communicates 
itself  to  a  third  person  or  object  by  contact. — ^14.  A  glance  at  this 
verse  is  enough  to  convince  one  that  the  application  of  the  prophet's 
parable  was  meant  to  convey  disapproval.  The  expressions  this 
people  and  this  nation  give  it  a  sinister  tone.  Cf.  i^.  When,  how- 
ever, one  looks  a  little  further,  one  realises  that  his  ultimate  object 
is  to  encourage  his  people.  This  conflict  of  ideas  must  in  some 
way  be  adjusted.  It  cannot  be  done  by  rendering  the  verse  as  a 
description  of  the  actual  condition  of  the  Jews  when  the  prophet 
was  addressing  them,  for  in  that  way  the  contradiction  is  made  even 

*  In  later  times  it  was  largely  reserved  for  the  priests  (Lv.  626  j6)_  Jjqj  the  worshipper  always 
had  a  share  in  the  peace-offerings.     Cj.  Lv.  7'^  ^■. 

t  The  earliest  reference  to  the  uncleanness  of  the  dead  is  found  in  Ho.  g^.  C/.  also  Dt.  26'^ 
For  the  later  laws  see  Nu.  19"  ^■,  and  for  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  subject,  DB.,  art.  Unclean- 
ness; Beuzinger,  Arch.,  480  /. 


68  HAGGAI 

more  apparent.  The  only  other  alternative  is  to  make  it  refer  to 
the  past  and  explain  the  previous  experience  of  the  j)eople.  Trans- 
late, therefore,  So  hath  it  been  with  this  people,  and  so  with  this 
nation  before  me,  saith  Yahweh.  It  is  clear  that  the  prophet  here 
neglects  his  first  question,  and  confines  himself  to  a  direct  applica- 
tion of  the  second.  If  so,  what  he  means  is  that  the  Jews  in  some 
way,  he  does  not  here  say  how,  brought  themselves  into  a  condi- 
tion similar  to  that  of  one  who  has  become  unclean  from  contact 
with  a  dead  body.  Now,  the  priests  had  said  that  uncleanness 
was  contagious.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  expect  that  the  prophet 
will  here  make  an  application  of  this  important  fact,  and  the  next 
clause,  yea,  so  with  all  the  work  of  their  hands,  seems  to  meet  this 
expectation.  But  what  is  meant  by  the  work  or — for  this  is  a 
possible  rendering — works  of  their  hands?  This  expression  in 
one  of  the  earlier  prophetical  books  would  be  understood  as  a  ref- 
erence to  the  conduct  or  practices  of  those  who  were  addressed. 
Cf  Am.  8'  Je.  25".  Such,  however,  can  hardly  be  the  thought 
in  this  connection.  In  the  first  place,  since  Haggai  nowhere  else 
alludes  to  the  sins  for  which  his  predecessors  arraigned  their  con- 
temporaries, it  is  not  probable  that  he  does  so  in  this  connection. 
Nor  is  such  an  interpretation  in  harmony  with  the  evident  pur- 
pose of  the  prophet,  which  is  to  apply  the  law  of  the  transmission 
of  uncleanness.  There  is  another  and  better.  The  phrase  "work 
of  the  hands"  occurs  several  times  in  Deuteronomy  in  the  sense  of 
human  undertakings,  and  especially  agricultural  operations.  Cf. 
24'*  28'"  30®.  The  transition  from  the  operation  to  the  product 
is  natural  and  easy.  It  is  actually  made  in  v.  ",  where  "  the  works 
of  your  hands"  can  mean  nothing  but  the  crops.  Cf.  also  i".  It 
is  therefore  probable  that  in  this  passage  the  prophet  intends  to 
say  that  the  people  have  in  some  way  defiled  themselves  and  com- 
municated their  uncleanness  to  the  products  of  their  labor,  the 
grain  they  have  sowed  and  reaped  and  the  cattle  they  have  raised. 
Thus  it  came  to  pass  that  what  they  from  time  to  time  offered  on 
the  altar  already  erected  was  unclean.  Haggai  does  not  say  how 
the  people  defiled  themselves,  but  it  is  easy  enough  to  learn  what 
he  thought  on  the  subject.  Their  great  fault  in  his  eyes  was  that 
they  had  neglected  to  rebuild  the  temple  and  thus  prevented  the 


2'"-'"  69 

return  of  Yahweh  and  the  introduction  of  the  Messianic  era.  He 
charged  them  with  it  at  the  start  (i^),  and  he  alludes  to  it  again  in 
the  next  verse.  This  it  was  that  had  defiled  them  and  rendered 
their  worship  offensive  to  Yahweh.  Haggai  does  not  return  to 
his  first  question.  If  he  had,  and  had  undertaken  to  complete 
the  twofold  thought  with  which  he  began,  he  would  doubtless  have 
said  in  effect  that  the  meagre  worship  his  people  paid  to  Yahweh 
had  been  more  than  neutraHsed  by  their  selfish  and  short-sighted 
indifference  to  the  supreme  duty  of  restoring  the  national  sanc- 
tuar)'. 

There  have  been  various  attempts  to  apply  Haggai's  parable  in  greater  de- 
tail. One  of  the  most  elaborate  is  that  of  Andre,  the  result  of  which  is  as  fol- 
lows: The  man  bearing  the  holy  flesh  =  Israel.  The  garment  in  which  it  is 
borne  =  Palestine.  The  skirt  of  the  garment  =  Jerusalem.  The  holy  flesh 
=  the  altar.  The  bread,  etc.  =the  products  of  the  soil.  The  altar  sanctified 
the  land,  but  not  its  products.  The  man  defiled  =Israel.  The  corpse  =  the 
ruined  temple.  Thebread,  etc.  =the  products  of  the  soil.  The  ruined  temple 
defiled  the  sacrifices  offered  on  the  temporary  altar. 

16.  And  now,  says  the  prophet,  as  if  about  to  introduce  a  con- 
trast to  the  previous  state  of  things.  He  is,  but  not  until  he  has 
shown  the  unhappy  results  of  the  failure  of  the  people  to  please 
Yahweh.  The  subject  is  an  important  one.  Hence  the  impres- 
sive warning,  take  tJwught,  as  he  approaches  it.  He  first  reminds 
his  people  of  their  condition  before  a  stone  was  placed  upon  another 
in  the  temple  of  Yahweh,  that  is,  for  an  indefinite  period  before 
work  was  begun  on  the  new  temple.* — ^16.  During  that  unhappy 
period,  when  one  came  to  a  heap  of  twenty  measnres,  a  pile  of  un- 
threshed  or  unwinnowed  grain  from  which  one  would  ordinarily 
get  this  amount,  the  yield  was  so  light  that  tliere  were  actually  only 
ten.  The  returns  from  the  vineyards  were  still  less  satisfactory; 
for,  when  one  came  to  the  winevat  expecting  to  dip  off  fifty  measures 
of  must,  he  found  that  there  were  only  twenty.  Cf  Is.  5'",  Disap- 
pointments of  this  kind  are  still  so  frequent  in  Palestine  that  they 
have  given  rise  to  the  proverb,  "The  reckoning  of  the  threshing- 
floor  does  not  tally  with  that  of  the  field."  Cf  Wilson,  PLHL., 
309. 

*  The  phrase  rendered  in  AV.  from  this  day  and  upward  is  purposely  ignored. 


70  HAGGAI 

The  wine-presses  in  southern  Palestine  were  excavated  in  the  limestone 
which  underlies  the  soil.  CJ.  Ju.  6"  Is.  5'.  They  consisted  of  two  vats  on 
different  levels,  the  one  larger  and  shallower  for  the  grapes,  the  other  smaller 
and  deeper  for  their  juice.  They  were  separated  by  a  partition  of  native  rock 
pierced  by  a  hole  by  which  the  juice  flowed  from  the  one  to  the  other.  There 
was  no  uniformity  in  the  size  of  cither  receptacle.  Nor  was  the  number  of 
vats  always  two.  There  were  sometimes  three,  or  even  four.  CJ.  EB.,  art. 
Wine;  PEF.,  QS.,  1899,  41/.;  ZDPV.,  x,  146. 

17.  There  follows  a  careless  or  corrupt  quotation  from  Amos 
with  additions.  The  object  of  it  is  to  explain  the  failure  of  the 
crops  as  just  described.  It  was  due  to  the  direct  intervention  of 
Yahweh.  I  smote  you,  he  says,  with  blight  afid  decay.  These 
are  the  precise  words  of  Am.  4".  Haggai,  if  the  next  clause  is 
genuine,  adds  in  a  more  prosaic  style,  and  with  Jiail  all  the  work  of 
your  hajids,  that  is,  as  in  v.  ",  the  crops  for  which  they  had  toiled. 
All  this  is  appropriate  enough;  but  the  remainder  of  the  verse, 
which  is  an  imitation  or  a  corruption  of  the  familiar  refrain,  "yet 
ye  returned  not  unto  me,  saith  Yahweh,"  used  by  Amos,  4^^-,  no 
fewer  than  five  times,  is  out  of  place  in  this  connection,  the  object 
of  the  prophet  being  to  emphasise,  not  the  stubbornness  of  the  peo- 
ple, but  the  unhappiness  of  their  circumstances.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  this  part  of  the  verse  is  a  late  addition  made  by  a 
reader  who  thought  it  necessary  here,  as  in  the  prophecy  of  Amos, 
to  complete  the  thought. — 18.  Now,  at  length,  comes  the  transi- 
tion indicated  by  the  Atid  now  of  v.  ''.  The  prophet,  therefore, 
seeks  to  revive  the  impression  then  {)roduced  by  repeating  the 
warning,  take  thought.  It  is  the  future,  however,  on  which  he  now 
wishes  to  focus  attention,  the  period,  as  he  describes  it,  from  this 
time  onward.  The  exact  date  of  this  turning-point  is  given.  It 
is  the  date  of  the  present  discourse,  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  ninth 
month.  Cf.  v.  '".  So  great  precision  was  not  necessary  for  those 
to  whom  the  prophecy  was  originally  addressed  or  those  for  whom 
the  book  of  Haggai  was  finally  compiled.  Moreover,  this  date 
rather  disturbs  the  balance  of  the  verse  and  emphasises  an  avoid- 
able difficulty.  It  is,  therefore,  probably  an  interpolation.  When 
it  is  removed  the  phrase  just  used  is  brought  into  close  connection 
with  the  clause  which  was  evidently  intended  to  define  it.  This 
clause  is  usually  translated  from  the  day  when  the  temple  was 


founded,  which  naturally  means  that  the  foundation  of  the  new 
structure  was  laid  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  ninth  month;  as  the 
glossator  expressly  teaches. 

The  conflict  between  this  inference  and  the  statement  of  Ezr.  38  ff  •  is  evident. 
A  favourite  method  of  adjusting  it  is  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  here  refers, 
not  to  a  first  movement  to  rebuild  the  temple,  but  to  the  renewal  of  one  be- 
gun in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus  and  after  a  little  suppressed. 
So  Dru.,  de  D.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Or.,  et  al.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  to  adopt 
such  an  explanation,  much  less  to  torture  familiar  idioms  for  the  sake  of  bring- 
ing this  passage  into  accord  with  one  that  has  been  shown  to  be  unhistorical. 
On  the  historicity  of  Ezr.  3*  ^-  v.  pp.  10/.;  on  the  idioms  n'^yn  and  JdS,  the 
critical  notes.  There  is  more  in  the  objection  that,  according  to  I'^a,  work 
was  begun  on  the  temple  three  months  before  the  date  of  this  prophecy,  and 
that,  according  to  2^,  at  the  end  of  about  a  month  the  builders  seem  to  have 
made  progress.  The  usual  explanation  for  this  apparent  discrepancy  is  that 
the  work  begun  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  sixth  month  was  that  of  clearing 
the  site  and  providing  materials  for  the  new  building.  So  Dru.,  de  D.,  Marck, 
Hi.,  Koh.,  Sta.,  We.,  etal.  Now.  objects  that  it  could  not  have  taken  three 
months  to  make  the  preparations  named,  and  argues  therefrom  that  the  clause 
above  quoted,  as  well  as  the  date,  is  ungenuine.  The  objection  is  a  fair  one 
and  the  conclusion  valid  against  the  clause — as  translated,  but  there  is  room 
for  doubt  whether  the  rendering  above  given  does  justice  to  the  original. 

What  is  wanted  here  is  a  parallel  to  v.  *^^.  Now,  in  that  clause 
it  is  not  a  date,  but  a  period  and  the  condition  of  things  during  that 
period,  which  are  described.  Moreover  the  condition  is  presented 
as  a  reason  or  explanation  for  a  given  result.  It  was  when  (and 
because)  a  stone  had  not  been  placed  upon  another  in  the  temple 
of  Yahweh  that  the  crops  had  failed.  The  construction  in  this 
case  is  the  same  and  the  connection  perfectly  analogous.  The  pas- 
sage should  therefore  be  rendered,  from  the  time  when  the  temple 
hath  been  founded,  that  is,  now  that  the  temple  has  been  founded. 
That  this  is  the  prophet's  meaning  appears  because  the  passage, 
so  rendered,  (i)  furnishes  a  perfect  parallel  to  v.  ^^^,  (2)  presents 
a  reason  for  the  blessing  promised  in  v.  ^^  and  (3)  harmonises 
i''^'^  and  2^. — 19.  There  was  danger  that  some  of  those  whom 
Haggai  was  addressing  would  take  his  words  too  literally,  suppos- 
ing that  Yahweh  would  at  once  give  them  a  convincing  token  of  a 
change  of  attitude  toward  them.  The  prophet  took  pains  to  pre- 
vent them  from  falling  into  this  error.  The  divine  displeasure 
had  been  manifested  by  a  blight  upon  agriculture.     The  prophet 


72  HAGGAI 

expected  that  Yahweh  would  manifest  his  favour  by  giving  rain  in 
its  season  and,  as  a  result,  abundant  harvests.  It  was  now,  how- 
ever, too  early,  December,  to  look  for  tangible  evidence  to  this 
effect.  The  grain,  to  be  sure,  had  been  sown,  and  the  fields  were 
already  green  with  it,  but  there  would  be  some  weeks  before  any 
one  could  tell  whether  the  crop  would  be  great  or  small,  and  the 
harvest  for  the  vineyard  and  the  orchard  was  still  further  in  the 
future.  This  is  the  thought  that  the  prophet  has  in  mind  when, 
in  his  abrupt  manner,  as  if  again  answering  an  objection,  he  asks. 
Is  the  seed,  here,  as  in  Lv.  27^"  and  elsewhere,  the  return  from  the 
grain  sown,  the  crop,  already  in  the  granary?  A  negative  answer 
is  expected.  In  the  following  clause  the  negative  is  found  in  the 
prophet's  statement,  nor  have  the  vine,  and  the  fig,  and  the  pome- 
granate, and  the  olive  tree  yet  borne,  that  is,  had  time  to  bear.  In 
other  words,  there  has  been  no  harvest  since  work  on  the  temple 
was  begun.  This  being  the  case,  the  prophet  sees  no  ground  for 
discouragement.  Indeed  he  proceeds  to  transform  this  negative 
inference  into  positive  assurance.  He  believes,  not  only  that  Yah- 
weh has  been  propitiated,  but  that  he  has  already  decreed  a  satis- 
factory harvest.  He  therefore  closes  the  discourse  by  putting  into 
his  mouth  the  promise.  From  this  time  will  I  bless. 

10.  The  transfer  of  I'^t  to  this  chapter  brought  the  date  at  the  head  of 
the  chapter  into  conformity  with  that  in  1'.  At  the  same  time  it  indi- 
cated the  type  that  the  author  might  be  expected  to  follow.  The  fact 
that  the  date  here  given  has  a  different  form  warrants  a  suspicion  that 
the  phrase,  crmS  D\ir  nju'a,  which,  moreover,  is  unnecessary,  has 
been  added. — Sn]  Here  there  has  been  a  struggle  between  '^n  and  lo. 
There  is  authority  for  both  of  them,  but  the  former  is  the  one  required  by 
the  context.  Cf.  Vnb',  v.  ".  It  is  also  the  reading  of  80  mss.,  and,  among 
the  earliest  edd.,  Sonc.  '"«•  '^"^  Bres.,  Pes.  "'s-  '"',  Ven.  '"'■  >"«.  Fi- 
nally it  has  the  support  of  (S I H  ft".  C/.  Baer,  Gins. — 11.  Thereisone 
objection  to  Sn,  viz.,  that,  if  it  is  adopted,  Yahweh  is  here  made  to  appeal 
to  his  own  authority.  This,  however,  is  not  serious.  Here,  as  in  Zc.  8", 
ni.x3S  n^n•>  icN  dd  was  used  by  the  prophet  or  inserted  by  a  copyist  as 
a  mere  formula,  without  a  second  thought  with  reference  to  its  appropri- 
ateness in  the  connection.  If  it  is  an  interpolation,  its  history  is  probably 
involved  with  that  of  n>3. — S.xu']  ft,  which  has  I'J,  consistently  renders 
this  word  as  if  it  were  pi. — 12.  jn]  The  word  is  usually  treated  as  an 
Aramaism,  but,  as  used  here,  it  is  not  properly  a  hypothetical  particle. 


Its  force  is  rather  that  of  a  demonstrative  calling  attention  to  an  act  the 
result  of  which  is  to  be  considered.  So  Ex.  4'  822/26  (both  J) ;  BDB.  On 
the  accentuation,  v.  Baer,  Notes,  80;  Wickes,  i7P/l.,  118. — iflJ3]  Kenn. 
30  has  nj3  fjjo.  So  also  QUI;  and  Bu.  adopts  this  reading.  It  is  prob- 
able, however,  since  nj3  is  usually  omitted,  that  the  repetition  of  the  full 
expression  is  due  to  dittog.  Cf.  Dt.  23V2230  Ez.  168  Zc.  8",  etc.— jne*] 
Rd.,  with  18  mss.,  Kenn.,  prn.  Cf.  onSn,  etc. — 13.  ijn]  On  the  omis- 
sion of  NOjn,  see  p.  30. — ti'oj]  For  hd  i^cj,  lit.,  the  soul  of  one  dead.  Cf. 
Lv.  21"  Nu.  6^  and  on  the  construction,  Ges.  ^  "».  s  k).  Sometimes  ^oi 
is  preceded  by  S.  C/.  Nu.  52  9'". — Sj2]  On  the  preposition,  cf.  Ges.  |  "'• 
3  (4)  (2)j  on  "73  in  the  sense  of  any,  Ges,  5  ni.  1  (o  r.  1  (o.— n^]  For 
chp<  nS.  Cf.  V.  13;  Ges.  ^  '5"-  '. — 14.  nrn  oyn  p]  Boh.  om.  this  clause 
as  superfluous,  forgetting,  apparently,  that  Hebrew  vvnriters  often 
resort  to  repetition  for  emphasis.  Cf.  Is  i^ — niryn]  A  cstr.  sg.,  with  a 
dependent  pi.,  may  itself  have  the  force  of  pi.  Cf.  Ges.  §  im  •  2  c ).  Hence 
it  is  not  necessary  to  rd.  ^sryn  to  account  for  the  pi.  in  CS  ?I  #  21. — lanpM] 
The  impf.,  to  denote  customary  action.  Cf  Ges.  ^  ""■  '  <*'. — 05  renders 
the  whole  clause  ko2  bs  iav  iyila-Q  iKel  fjnavdrjcrerai. — ^  (H)  adds  at  the 
end  of  the  verse,  eveKev  tQv  XtjufidTuv  avrCov  tQv  dpOpivQv  65vvriO-f)<TovT(ii 
airb  7rpo(T(iwov  ■n-6v<j}v  airuv,  Kal  ifxiffeire  iv  TriJXots  iXiyxovras;  on  account 
of  their  early  gains  they  shall  suffer  from  their  labours,  and  they  hate  in  gates 
one  that  reproveth.  This  gloss,  the  last  words  of  which  are  from  Am.  5'2, 
seems  to  have  been  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  rwi'd/j^ptvcDf  being  evi- 
dently the  result  of  mistaking  inu',  bribe,  for  inr,  dawn.  It  has  no  fit- 
ness in  this  connection. — 15.  nSyni  ntn  orn  jc]  This  phrase,  when  ap- 
plied to  time,  always  elsewhere  refers  to  the  future.  Cf  i  S.  i6'3  302s. 
Still,  the  older  exegetes,  taking  the  words  that  follow  as  an  explanation, 
felt  forced  to  interpret  it  as  referring  to  the  past,  the  period  preceding  the 
date  of  this  prophecy.  So  Jer.,  Ra.,  Dru.,  Marck,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Koh.;  also 
Reuss,  Sta.,  Per.,  Kau.,  BDB.,  et  al.  An  ingenious  modification  of  this  view 
is  that  of  van  H.,  who  renders  the  whole  verse,  "  Portez  voire  attention  de  ce 
jour-ci  et  au  dela,  depuis  qu'  on  ne  pla^ait  pas  encore  pierre  sur  pierre  dans 
le  temple  de  Jahvc,"  i.  e.,  as  he  explains,  ^'depuis  le  premier  jour  de  la 
periode  durant  laquelle  on  differa  constammejit  d'elever  les  murs  sur  les 
fondements  deja  prets."  In  other  words,  he  claims  that  the  prophet  would 
first  lead  the  minds  of  his  auditors  backward  to  the  date  on  which  opera- 
tions supposed  to  have  been  begun  under  Cyrus  were  discontinued,  and 
thence  onward  over  the  period  between  that  date  and  the  one  on  which 
he  was  speaking.  The  objections  to  this  interpretation  are:  (i)  that  it 
takes  for  granted  the  historicity  of  Ezr.  3'  'f-;  (2)  that  it  gives  to  nSjjDi 
a  meaning  for  which  there  is  no  authority ;  and  (3)  that  it  makes  the  whole 
phrase  a  hinderance  rather  than  an  assistance  in  any  attempt  to  under- 
stand the  prophet's  message.  These  objections  are  avoided  by  giving  to 
nS;'ci,  with  Seeker,  the  meaning  that  it  has  elsewhere.     If,  however,  it 


74  HAGGAI 

refers  to  the  future,  how  can  this  interpretation  be  harmonised  with  the 
fact  that  in  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  the  prophet  is  evidently  thinking  of 
the  past?  Pressel  meets  this  difficulty  by  putting  a  full  stop  after  ^^y^y, 
thus  making  vv.  •">-"  a  parenthesis.  So  Now.,  Matthes,  Marti,  Bu., 
And.  The  result  thus  obtained  is  no  doubt  in  harmony  with  the  proph- 
et's idea,  but  there  is  a  simpler  way  of  reaching  it,  viz.,  by  treating  the 
whole  phrase,  ny'^r:)  nn  ovn  p,  as  an  interpolation.  This  method  has 
obvious  advantages:  (i)  The  prophet  is  thus  relieved  of  responsibility 
for  an  awkward  and  unnatural  construction.  (2)  The  attention  of  the 
^  reader  is  called  first  to  the  past  and  then  to  the  future,  just  as  it  is  in  i'-  '. 
(3)  It  is  much  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a  careless  scribe  inten- 
tionally or  unintentionally  inserted  the  phrase,  because  it  occurred  in 
V.  ",  than  that  the  prophet  himself  introduced  it  before  he  had  any  use 
for  it. — 0TJ2]  The  only  case  in  which  dtj  is  preceded  by  p  or  followed 
by  the  inf.  On  Zp.  22,  cf.  Kit.— "-n]  (6,  (irl;  g>  ®,  ^';;  %  B,  supra  =^;-. 
— 16.  arrnc]  The  text  is  clearly  corrupt,  but  it  is  not  so  plain  how  it 
should  be  emended.  Matthes  {ZAW.,  1903,  125/.),  following  (&  {rive^ 
ijTc)  £,  rds.  ani-ri  nn,  How  was  it  with  you  ?  So  Marti.  Bu.  prefers 
Dn"n  ^D  as  more  idiomatic.  Cf.  Ru.  3"  Am.  7'-  s.  Neither  of  these 
readings  is  favoured  by  the  other  Vrss.,  which  render  D<t<3  Dnrns  as  if  it 
were  a^sa  D^nrnn;  a  form  of  expression  that  actually  occurs  in  Gn.  34". 
Thus  31  has  cum  accaderetis,  &,  ^h^oax  '^]^  i-=  and  01,  pn^nis 
pSj'.  Something  to  this  effect  is  required  by  the  context.  The  fol- 
lowing is  suggested  as  the  original  reading:  ^e>  nvna,  while  the  days  were, 
during  the  time  when.  The  changes  made  are  all  justifiable.  The  prep. 
3  is  required,  because  the  prophet  is  dealing  with  a  period,  and  not  a 
point,  of  time.  The  construction  in  which  a  cstr.,  especially  of  av  or  ry, 
is  followed  by  a  descriptive  clause  is  a  familiar  one.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  iss.  2  (*)  (sj 
'•  '.  In  2  Ch.  24",  as  in  this  case,  the  vb.  has  an  indefinite  subj.  Cf. 
also  Lv.  7''  Dt.  32'5,  etc.  Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  reading  sug- 
gested has  the  support  of  several  good  authorities  to  the  extent  that  these 
scholars  interpret  the  sf.  o  as  meaning  av  or  •'cv  So  Dru.,  Mau.,  Hi., 
Koh.,  Hd.,  et  al. — a^iu'y  nmy  Ss  Na]  (6,  6t€  ive^dWere  eh  Kv\pi\7]v 
KpiOiji  etKocri  (rdra,  where  Kpidijs,  which  is  wanting  in  L,  seems  to  have 
been  suggested  by  the  resemblance  of  anfy,  twenty,  to  Dn;'i:',  barley. — 
nniDJ  The  word  has  been  interpreted  in  two  ways:  First,  as  a  measure. 
So  probably  01,  P'^^J,  and  explicitly  Ra.  and  some  later  commentators. 
Cf.  Mau.,  Hd.,  et  al.  If  this  interpretation  were  correct,  there  would  still 
be  room  for  doubting  the  genuineness  of  the  word,  since  there  is  no  more 
need  of  a  measure  here  than  in  the  first  half  of  the  verse.  Cf.  Ru.  3"; 
Ges.  ^  m.  s.  r.  3,  It  is  clear,  however,  from  Is.  63'  that  !')-\yB  is  not  a 
measure,  but  practically  a  synonym  for  ap'.  The  same  objection  holds 
good  against  a  modification  of  this  view  according  to  which  rnio,  al- 
though it  properly  means  wine-press,  here  has  the  derived  sense  of  trough- 


2"-"  75 

Jul.  Cf.  Hi.,  Koh.,  Ke.,  And.,  et  al.  The  second  interpretation  is  that 
required  by  Is.  63'.  Those  who  adopt  it,  if  they  retain  the  word  in  the 
text,  have  to  supply  3  (Dru.)  or  p.  Cf.  AV.,  Cal.,  Sm.,  We.,  Now., 
van  H.,  et  al.  The  latter,  which  is  now  the  favourite  reading,  must  be 
rejected  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  If,  as  is  alleged,  this  is  a  case  of 
haplog.,  since  the  original  must  have  been  miBns,  not  miDS,  Sm.,  the 
text  ought  still  to  show  misn.  (2)  There  is  no  reason  for  emphasising  the 
thought  that  the  wine  was  to  be  drawn /row  the  wine-press,  and  if  there 
were,  uco  would  answer  the  purpose.  There  is  no  support  for  either  of 
these  views  in  the  Vrss.  ^,  to  be  sure,  has  /xeTpTjrds,  ?I  amphoras,  and 
U  lagenas,  but  they  have  a  measure  in  the  first  half  of  the  verse  also,  not 
because  M  had  one,  but  because  the  Greek  and  Latin  idioms  require 
it.  Their  testimony,  therefore,  is  valueless.  That  of  §  is  to  the  effect 
that  nils,  for  which  it  has  no  equivalent,  is  a  gloss  to  2p'  which  has 
been  inserted  in  the  text  in  the  wrong  place.  So  ARV.,  Matthes,  Marti, 
Kit.  Houb.  rd.  naifj  in  the  sense  of  jar.  The  Standard  Revision,  also, 
originally  had  "vessels"  in  Italics,  i.e.,  omitted  ."niD;  but,  to  use  the 
words  of  Per.,  "the  mistake  (!)  has  now  been  corrected." — 17.  "Ti^sn 

ppiM   ]  Taken  from  Amos,  but  not  necessarily  an  interpolation,  since 

the  parallel  clause,  which  should  begin  with  Tijai,  and  not,  as  in  M,  with 
HN,  seems  to  be  original. — nc-jjc]  Cf.  v.  '^  CS  ICTI  ®  have  the  pi.  The 
word  is  in  the  same  construction,  ace,  as  ddpn. — The  last  clause,  also, 
was  borrowed  from  Amos,  but  not  by  Haggai;  for  (i)  it  is  more  carelessly 
reproduced  than  the  first  one,  and  (2)  it  gives  to  the  prophet's  thought  a 
new  and  unnatural  direction.  In  any  case  the  text  must  be  emended, 
ODHN  pN  being  indefensible;  Ko.  §  "»»;  contra,  Ew.  i^esd;  and,  since  t\v 
can  hardly  be  explained  except  by  supposing  it  to  be  original,  it  seems 
better  to  rd.  ddju*  px.  Gins.,  or  D^ai?  DDrs,  Bu.,  than  anity  a^.  Kit.  The 
whole  verse  is  omitted  by  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Bu.,  Kit. — 18.  The 
same  authorities  reject  the  date  in  this  verse,  and  the  last  three  the  clause 
that  follows.  The  date  is  no  doubt  superfluous,  p.  70,  and  the  omis- 
sion of  nin»  pS  would  relieve  the  apparent  discrepancy  between 

this  passage,  on  the  one  hand,  and  i^-'s^  and  2'  on  the  other;  but,  as  has 
been  shown  in  the  Com.,  this  latter  clause  is  required  to  explain  why  Yah- 
weh  should  now  bless  his  people,  and,  when  it  is  properly  understood,  its 
genuineness  can  be  defended. — The  force  of  nSpni  is  here  so  clear  that 
"&,  which  in  v.  '^  has  et  supra,  renders  it  this  time  et  in  futurum.  So 
Marck,  Seek.,  de  D.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  et  al.  Those,  however,  who  maintain 
that  the  foundation  of  the  temple  was  laid  in  the  second  year  of  Cyrus, 
and  that  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  refers  to  that  event,  are  obliged  to 
translate  it  here,  as  well  as  in  v.  ^^,  and  backward.  So  C5,  RV.,  Dru., 
New.,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Ew.,  Ke.,  Per.,  van  H.,  et  al.  Moreover,  they  must 
do  violence  to  p*?,  either,  with  Ew.,  giving  it  the  force  of  nyi,  or  practi- 
cally making  it  do  double  duty,  first  pointing  the  reader  to  the  past  and 


76  HAGGAI 

then,  from  a  certain  date  in  the  past,  turning  his  attention  toward  the 
present.  The  former  of  these  methods  of  treatment  entirely  ignores  He- 
brew usage,  according  to  which  jdS  and  1J?1,  so  far  from  being  inter- 
changeable, are  direct  opposites.  Cf.  Ex.  ii'  2  S.  7*.  On  the  second, 
which  is  best  represented  by  van  Hoonacker,  see  v.  ",  notes.  The  position 
taken  in  the  comments  is  that  pS  without  n>i  marks  the  beginning  of  a 
period  extending  to  the  present,  and  that  the  foundation  of  the  temple  dis- 
tinguishes and  dominates  the  whole  of  it.  For  other  examples,  cj.  Dt. 
4"  2  S.  7". — If  the  preceding  clause  is  retained,  it  is  not  necessary,  with 
<S  &,  to  connect  aoaaS  icr  with  v.  ". — '^'\'^'''\  05^  adds  iravTWKpdTwp  = 
niK3x.  &  adds  n  «1'"i^Vi\  |j£bl:;k^^,  of  Hosts  to  be  built.  Cf.  i-. 
— 19.  muDJ]  Zeydner  {Th.  St.,  1900,  417  ff.)  rds.  niijsa,  an  object 
o/fear,  the  3  being  3  essentia;  but  Matthes  objects,  and  justly,  that  the 
meaning  garner  suits  the  context,  and  that  3  essentice  is  not  used  with  the 
article.  Cf.  De.  on  Ps.  35'.— n>li]  Rd.,  with  (S'^Q^  H  iH,  ip.  On  the 
meaning  of  nS  nj:,  cf.  Je.  40^  2  Ch.  20". — Nfc'j]  (5,  (pipovra  =  Nrj.  So 
Matthes,  Marti,  but  H  &  21  have  the  equivalent  of  inu'j,  which  would  be 
the  regular  construction.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  '*^-  '  <'''. — T13n]  Houb.rds.03-i3N, 
citing  &,  which  adds  at  the  end  of  the  verse  X^fH^  i^^l  ^eoul^  = 
mn'  ONJ  oniN. 


4.  THE  FUTURE  OF  THE  LEADER  ZERUBBABEL 

(220-23)^ 

This  prophecy  is  addressed  to  Zerubbabel  alone.  In  it  Haggai 
foretells  a  great  catastrophe  by  which  kings  will  be  overthrown 
and  kingdoms  destroyed,  but  after  which  the  prince,  unharmed, 
will  receive  new  honours  from  Yahweh. 

20.  In  the  preceding  prophecy  Haggai  confined  his  attention 
to  internal  conditions  and  the  prospect  of  improvement.  Very 
soon  after  he  delivered  it,  something  must  have  happened  to  give 
his  thoughts  a  different  direction.  Perhaps  there  came  news  from 
the  East,  the  report  of  a  new  outbreak  or  a  battle  unfavourable  to 
the  Persians,  which  tended  to  confirm  the  opinion  current  in 
Jerusalem  that  the  days  of  the  empire  were  numbered.  At  any 
rate,  on  the  iweniy-fourth  of  the  ninth  month,  the  word  of  Yahweh 
came  to  him  a  second  time,  and  he  prophesied. — 21 .  The  message 
is  a  private  and  personal  one.  Even  Joshua,  who,  in  the  first  two 
cases,  was  recognised  as  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  new  community, 
is  now  ignored.    This  fact  might  give  rise  to  many  vain  theories; 


as,  for  example,  that  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  had  become  es- 
tranged, and  Haggai  had  espoused  the  cause  of  the  governor.  A 
simpler  explanation,  and  probably  the  correct  one,  is  that  the 
prophecy  was  directed  to  Zerubbabel  because  he  was  the  one  most 
concerned  in  its  fulfilment.  It  begins  with  a  repetition  of  the  an- 
nouncement of  V.  ^,  /  will  shake  heaven  and  earth. — 22.  In  v.  ' 
the  prophet  was  content  with  merely  indicating  in  a  general  way 
what  Yahweh  meant  by  threatening  to  shake  heaven  and  earth, 
viz.,  political  commotion.  Here  he  is  bolder.  /  will  overturn,  he 
makes  Yahweh  say,  the  rule,^  lit.,  the  throne,  of  the  kingdoms,  and 
destroy  the  might  of  the  nations.  This  is  a  very  sweeping  prophecy. 
It  seems  to  mean  that  the  prophet  expected  the  commotion  then 
rife  to  result  in  the  total  abolition  of  the  absolute  power  exercised 
by  the  kings  of  the  earth  and  their  submission  to  Yahweh  as  the 
King  of  Kings.  First,  however,  there  must  be  great  carnage;  for 
Yahweh  will  overturn  chariots  and  them  that  ride  therein,  and  horses 
shall  go  down,  and  their  riders,  to  Sheol.  Cf  Is.  5'*.  It  must  not 
be  supposed  that  the  Jews  are  to  have  any  part  in  this  conflict. 
They  will  merely  be  witnesses  while  Yahweh  is  destroying  their 
enemies;  or  rather,  while,  by  his  decree,  these  enemies  are  de- 
stroying one  another;  for  they  will  fall  each  by  the  sword  of  his  fel- 
low. Cf.  Ju.  7"  Ez.  38^^ — 23.  The  prophet  closes  this  his  last 
discourse  with  the  boldest  of  all  his  predictions.  He  introduces 
it  by  a  phrase,  very  common  in  other  books,  which,  however,  he 
has  not  hitherto  employed.  It  is  in  that  day,  by  which  he  means 
the  now  rapidly  approaching  time  when  the  divine  plan  concern- 
ing Israel  will  be  consummated  and  the  Messianic  era  inaugurated. 
The  solemnity  of  the  announcement  is  noticeable.  The  phrase 
just  quoted  is  followed  by  a  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts.  The  same 
expression  is  used  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  while  the  intervening 
statements  are  separated  by  the  briefer  saith  Yahweh.  There 
is  only  one  other  passage  in  the  book  (v.  *),  in  which  the  prophet 
appears  so  anxious  to  be  recognised  as  a  veritable  ambassador 
from  the  Almighty.     Zerubbabel  is  directly  addressed:    /  will 

*  The  word  ND3  is  frequently  used  in  this  signification.  Cf.  i  K.  i'',  el  pas.  The  rendering 
above  given  seems  required  by  parallelism  with  pin.  Otherwise  it  might  be  regarded  as  an 
example  of  a  common  Heb.  idiom,  the  use  of  the  sg.  for  the  pi.  in  the  cstr.  before  a  pi.,  and  trans- 
lated thrcmes.     Cf.  Ges.  §>"■  2  (O. 


78  HAGGAI 

take  thee,  says  Yahweh.  The  expression  implies  selection  for  an  im- 
portant service  or  mission.  Thus,  Yahweh  "took"  Abraham,  that 
he  might  be  the  father  of  a  chosen  people  (Jos.  24^) ;  Israel,  that 
they  might  be  his  people  and  he  their  God  (Ex.  6*^) ;  the  Levites, 
that  they  might  serve  him  at  his  sanctuary  (Nu.  3*^) ;  David,  that 
he  might  be  a  prince  over  Israel  (2  S.  7*) ;  and  Amos,  that  he  might 
represent  him  at  Bethel  (Am.  7''').  All  these,  in  so  far  as  they  ful- 
filled the  missions  for  which  they  were  selected,  were  Yahweh's 
serv^ants.  Cf.  Gn.  26^^  Is.  41*  2  S.  3*",  etc.  Yahweh  here  calls 
Zerubbabel,  partly  in  recognition  of  past  faithfulness,  but  also  in 
anticipation  of  greater  usefulness  in  the  future,  his  servant,  and  as 
such  promises  him  unique  distinction.  /  will  make  thee  as  a  sig- 
net, he  says.  Now,  the  signet,  or  seal-ring,  was  not  a  mere  orna- 
ment, although  as  such  it  was  sometimes  highly  valued  by  the 
Hebrews.  Its  peculiar  importance  lay  in  the  fact  that  it  was  en- 
graved and  was  used  when  its  owner  wished  to  sign  a  letter  or 
other  document.  Cf.  i  K.  21^.  It  represented  him,  and,  since 
at  any  time  it  might  be  needed  for  this  purpose,  he  rarely  parted 
with  it;  but  wore  it,  either  on  a  cord  about  his  neck  (Gn.  38'^),  or 
on  one  of  the  fingers  of  his  right  hand  (Je.  22^^),  everywhere.  Thus 
the  signet  came  to  be  a  symbol  for  one's  most  precious  possession. 
Cf.  Je.  22^^  Ct.  8*.  Such  is  its  significance  in  this  connection,  as 
appears  from  the  causal  clause, /or  thee  have  I  chosen.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  about  this  statement.  It  means  that  Haggai,  for- 
^"*"/(,>'  'j  getting  the  inspiring  idea  of  the  Second  Isaiah,  that  Israel  had  now 
inherited  the  promises  made  to  David  (Is.  55^),  and  become  the 
servant  ordained  to  carry  the  salvation  of  Yahweh  to  the  ends  of 
/the  earth  (Is.  49®),  had  revived  the  doctrine  of  the  ideal  king  and 
)  identified  Zerubbabel  with  the  long-expected  son  of  David. 


,#^ 


20.  On  the  genuineness  of  this  and  the  following  verses,  see  p.  30. — 
'jn]  Add,  with  Kenn.  250  (S,  N'2jn,  as  elsewhere,  exc.  w.  "  ''•,  where  it 
would  retard  the  narrative.  Cf.  i'  2>-  >». — 21.  Saair]  (&  adds,  and 
doubtless  correctly,  t6v  rod  SaXa^iT;\='?N>nSNU'  p]. — The  words  Kal  ttjv 
6d\a(Tffav  Kal  Trjv  ^rjpdv  (C),  at  the  end  of  the  verse,  on  the  other  hand, 
seem  to  have  been  borrowed  from  v.  '^,q.v. — 22.  nis'^CD']  (S,  /Sao-tX^wi/. 
The  omission  of  the  art.  suggests  that  perhaps  this  word  was  originally  fol- 
lowed by  O'oyn;  but  since  the  line  is  already  long  enough,  it  is  better  to 
supply  the  art — poSdd'J  Onj.  with  Boh.  as  unnecessary  to  the  sense  and 


2^"-^"  79 

disturbing  to  the  rhythm.  The  whole  clause  is  omitted  by  (^^*,  but  the 
omission  is  evidently  due  to  the  carelessness  of  a  copyist,  Greek  or  Heb. 
— noDHi]  (B^  adds  Kal  KaTaarpiipu}  iraaav  Trjv  Si/va/Mv  airrOiv  Kal  Kara^aXui 
rd  6pia  avrwv  Kal  iviax'^'^  ''"'"^s  ^/cXe/cToi)s  /jlov-  doubtless  a  marginal  gloss 
incorporated  into  its  text. — niii]  Gratz  suggests  mm;  van  H.  m^. 
The  present  reading,  however,  is  easily  defensible  if  the  vb.  be  taken  in 
the  natural  sense  of  descending  into  Sheol  which  it  has  in  Is.  5'*  Ez.  32", 
etc. — We.  supplies  I'^iS'';  but,  since  both  the  sense  and  the  rhythm  are 
complete  without  it,  it  is  better  to  treat  the  whole  clause  as  a  mistaken 
gloss. — D.'^in;]  Bu.  adds  ''^;  but  it  is  possible  that  the  prophet  purposely 
omitted  it,  thus  avoiding  an  anthropomorphism  to  which  Je.  22^^,  saw 
no  objection. 


ZECHARIAH  AND  HIS  PROPHECIES. 

The  book  of  Zechariah  consists  of  fourteen  chapters.  The  first 
eight  are  universally  recognised  as  the  work  of  the  prophet  to  whom 
they  are  attributed.  The  authorship  of  the  last  six  has  long  been 
in  dispute,  but  most  recent  authorities  on  the  question  refer  them 
to  some  other  author  or  authors.  This  opinion,  the  reasons  for 
which  will  in  due  time  be  given,  is  here  taken  for  granted.  The 
subject  of  this  chapter,  therefore,  more  exactly  stated,  would  be, 
Zechariah  as  he  reveals  himself  in  the  first  eight  chapters  of  the 
book  called  by  his  name. 

§  I.      THE  PERSONAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  PROPHET. 

There  is  not  much  to  be  learned  about  Zechariah  outside  of  his 
prophecies.  As  in  the  case  of  Haggai,  the  references  to  him  in 
Ezr.  5*  6^*  simply  reflect  an  acquaintance  with  these  utterances  in 
the  time  of  the  Chronicler.  When,  however,  Zc.  i*  is  combined 
with  Ne.  12*  the  resiilt  is  the  interesting  item  of  information  that 
Zechariah  w^g^a  priest  as  well  as  a  prophet.  The  fact  is  so  patent 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  cite  internal  evidence  in  support  of  it 
(3^*^*)  J  for  example,  where  one  might  perhaps  detect  a  special  inter- 
est in  the  priesthood.*  On  the  other  hand,  there  would  be  no  use 
in  citing  f  ^-  or  8^^  to  the  contrary.  Any  objection  based  on  them 
would  at  once  be  overruled,  the  answer  being  that  some  of  the 
severest  criticisms  of  the  priests  and  the  form  of  religion  they  rep- 
resent are  by  members  of  their  own  order.    Cf.  Je.  5^^  7*,  etc. 

The  recognition  of  Zechariah  as  a  priest,  then,  is  based  on  his 
relation  to  Iddo.  But  what,  precisely,  was  this  relation  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Zc.  i^  the  former  was  a  grandson  of  the  latter.  In  Ez.  5^ 
and  6",  however,  the  one  is  called  a  son  of  the  other,  and  this  also 
appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  Ne.  12*®  compared  with  v.  *,  where 

♦  The  casual  reader  would  naturally  think  6"  more  convincing,  but,  as  will  be  shown  in  the 
proper  place,  it  cannot  be  cited  for  the  purpose  named,  for  the  excellent  reason  that  in  its 
present  form  it  does  not  represent  Zechariah,  but  a  sacerdotal  reviser.    See  the  comments. 

8i 


82  ZECHARIAH 

Zechariah  takes  the  place  of  Iddo  among  the  chief  priests  under 
Joiakim  the  son  of  Jeshua  (Joshua),  presumably  in  the  next  gener- 
ation. It  has  been  taken  for  granted  that  these  discrepant  data 
could  be  adjusted  to  one  another,  and  various  means  to  that  end 
have  been  suggested.  A  favourite  conjecture  has  been  that  Zech- 
ariah was  sometimes  called  a  son  of  Iddo  because  Berechiah,  who 
really  was  his  father,  was  dead  or  was  a  person  of  comparatively 
little  importance.  Now,  it  is  true  that  the  word  son  is  sometimes 
in  the  Old  Testament  used  to  denote  a  descendant  of  the  third  or 
an  even  later  generation.  Thus,  for  example,  in  Gn.  29^"  Laban 
is  called  the  son  of  Nahor,  instead  of  the  son  of  Bethuel  as  in  24^^, 
and  in  Ezr.  f  Ezra  is  called  the  son  of  Seraiah,  although  there 
must  have  been  at  least  three  generations  between  them.  Cf. 
I  Ch.  5^''  ^•/6^*  ^•.  In  the  present  instance,  however,  there  is  a 
simpler  and  more  reasonable  solution  of  the  difficulty.  It  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  Jews,  disregarding  chronological  considerations, 
identified  Zechariah,  the  prophet  of  the  Restoration,  with  the  per- 
son of  the  same  name  mentioned  in  Is.  8".*  In  view  of  this  fact 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  Berechiah  of  Zc.  i^  is  a  corrup- 
tion of  Jeberechiah,  the  name  of  the  father  of  Isaiah's  associate, 
and  that  therefore  the  phrase  "the  son  of  Berechiah"  is  an  inter- 
polation inserted  by  some  one  later  than  the  Chronicler  who 
accepted  the  above  identification  and  took  this  means  of  spread- 
ing his  opinion.  The  omission  of  these  words  makes  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Iddo  here,  as  he  is  in  all  the  other  passages  in  which  he 
is  mentioned  .f 

Tradition,  as  represented  by  Pseudo-Epiphanius,  Dorotheus, 
and  Hesychius,  has  several  items  with  reference  to  the  life  of  Zech- 
ariah which  would  be  interesting  if  they  could  be  substantiated. 
Thus,  it  says  that,  when  he  came  from  Babylon  to  Palestine,  he 
was  already  well  advanced  in  years  and  had  given  proofs  of  his 
prophetic  ability  by  foretelling  various  future  events  and  perform- 
ing many  miracles. J  The  fact  is  that  these  statements  are  not  in 
harmony  with  the  more  credible  evidence  of  the  Old  Testament, 
according  to  which,  as  already  noted,  the  prophet  came  to  Pales- 

*  CI.  Fiirst,  KA  T..  44  /• 

t  Knobcl,  Proph.,  ii,  173  /.;  Bleek,  SK.,  1852,  312. 

X  For  the  text  of  the  accouDts  of  Zechariah  by  these  three  writers,  see  Kohler,  10  /. 


HIS   PERSONAL  HISTORY  83 

tine  with  his  father  and  probably  lived  until  after  the  death  of  the 
high  priest  Joshua.  Cf.  Ne.  12*-  *®.  The  safer  opinion,  then,  is 
that  Zechariah  was  a  comparatively  young  man  when  he  came  to 
Palestine,  and  that  he  was  by  no  means  "advanced  in  years"  when 
he  published  his  prophecies.  He  was  doubtless  younger  than  Hag- 
gai,  since  he  seems  to  have  survived  that  prophet  and  to  have  taken 
the  second  place  in  the  movement  to  restore  the  temple,  his  first 
prophecy  being  delivered  in  the  eighth  month  (i^),  while  Haggai's 
is  dated  the  first  of  the  sixth,  in  the  second  year  of  Darius.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  continued  to  prophesy  some  time  after  his  associate 
had  ceased,  his  last  dated  utterance  being  his  reply  to  the  men  of 
Bethel  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius.  Cf.  f^-.  In  fact  Ne.  12^^ 
where  he  is  among  the  chief  priests  imder  Joiakim  the  son  of 
Joshua,  is  pretty  good  evidence  that  his  life  was  prolonged  con- 
siderably beyond  that  date. 

The  Versions  give  Zechariah  the  credit  of  being  a  poet  as  well  as 
a  prophet,  associating  him  with  Haggai  in  the  authorship  of  sev- 
eral pieces  in  the  book  of  Psalms.* 

The  Christian  authors  above  cited  agree  in  reporting  that  Zech- 
ariah lived  to  a  great  age  and  died  a  natural  death ;  but  one  copy  of 
Epiphanius  (Cod.  Augustanus)  says  that  he  was  put  to  death  by 
Joash,  king  of  Judah,  in  other  words,  identifies  him  with  Zecha- 
riah the  son  of  Jehoida,  the  story  of  whose  martyrdom  is  told  in 
2  Ch.  24-"^-.  It  seems  incredible  that  any  one  should  make  so 
glaring  a  mistake,  but  this  is  not  the  only  trace  of  it.  The  Tar- 
gum  to  La.  2^"  calls  the  martyred  prophet  "Zechariah  the  son  of 
Iddo."  Indeed  it  appears  in  the  New  Testament,  for  when,  in 
Mt.  23^,  the  Evangelist  represents  Jesus  as  using  the  expression 
"from  the  blood  of  Abel  the  righteous  to  the  blood  of  Zechariah 
the  son  of  Berechiah,"  he  falls  into  the  same  error. 

There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion.  In  the  first  place,  the  text  is  un- 
assaQable,  the  phrase  vioO  ^apaxiov  being  as  clearly  genuine  as  any  other  part 
of  it.  There  is  only  one  ms.  (n)  of  importance  from  which  it  is  wanting,  and 
that  had  it  originally.  As  for  the  conjecture  that  Jehoida  was  also  called 
Berechiah  (Luther),  or  had  a  son,  the  father  of  Zechariah,  of  that  name 

*  The  Greek  Version  has  his  name  in  the  titles  of  137  (138)  and  145-149  (146-149);  the  Old 
Latin  in  that  of  iii  (112);  the  Vulgate  in  those  of  iii  (112),  145  /.  (146  /.);  and  the  Syiiac  in 
those  of  125  /.  (126  /.)  and  145-148  (146-148). 


84  ZECHARIAH 

(Ebrard,  Krit.  der  evang.  Gesch.^,  422),  or  that  Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo 
actually  suffered  the  same  fate  as  his  unhappy  predecessor  of  the  same  name, 
in  which  many  have  taken  refuge,  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation  for 
them. 

The  evangelist  is  followed,  not  only  by  the  author  of  the  inter- 
polation in  Epiphanius,  who  quotes  from  Matthew  the  phrase  "be- 
tween the  temple  and  the  altar,"  but  by  Jerome,  Chrysostom  and 
many  others.*  It  is  clear  from  the  above  discussion  that  nothing 
is  known  of  the  end  of  Zechariah.  The  discussion  itself,  however, 
by  showing  that  the  ancients  confounded  him  with  the  son  of  Je- 
hoida,  has  also  given  to  the  conjecture  that  they  also  mistook  him 
for  the  son  of  Jeberechiah,  namely,  in  Zc.  i',  increased  plausibility. 

§  2.   THE  STRUCTURE  OF  CHAPTERS  1-8. 

The  genuine  prophecies  of  Zechariah  form  a  tolerably  consistent 
and  intelligible  whole.  There  is,  first,  a_h()rtatory  introduction  ( i^'®) , 
originally,  to  judge  from  the  date  prefixed  to  it,  an  independent 
prophecy.  The  main  body  of  the  collection  (i'-6*'')  naturally  falls 
into  two  parts,  the  first  of  which  consists  of  a  series  of  eight  visions, 
each  with  its  interpretation,  followed  by  a  supplementary  descrip- 
tion of  a  symbolical  act  which  thejjrophet  is  commanded  to  per- 
_Jorm.  The  second  part,  chs.  7/.,  contains  only  an  account  of  the 
mission  of  the  men  of  Bethel  and  the  oracle  that  the  prophet  was  in- 
structed to  deliver  in  response  to  their  inquiry,  the  last  paragraph 
of  which  furnishes  a  suitable  conclusion  for  the  entire  collection. 

§  3.      THE  TEXT  OF  CHAPTERS    1-8. 

These  chapters  have  suffered  much  less  at  the  hands  of  editors, 
revisers  and  copyists  than  the  writings  of  some  of  the  other  proph- 
ets. Still,  it  cannot  in  strictness  be  said  that  they  have  preserved 
throughout  their  original  form  and  meaning.  There  is  proof  of 
this  at  the  very  outset.  It  was  evidently  a  habit  with  Zechariah  to 
introduce  his  utterances  with  a  statement  frequent  in  the  book  of 
Jeremiah,  namely,  "The  word  of  Yahweh  (of  Hosts)  came  to  me, 
saying."  At  any  rate,  it  can  be  shown  that  he  used  it  whenever 
it  was  appropriate.     Now,  however,  in  certain  cases,  the  first  has 

*  Luke  (11''')  omits  any  reference  to  the  parentage  of  the  prophet. 


THE   TEXT  OF  CHAPTERS   I-VIII  85 

given  place  to  the  third  person.  One  of  them  is  in  i\  where  the 
editor  of  the  collection,  instead  of  prefixing  a  title  giving  the  name, 
date,  etc.,  of  the  prophet,  and  then  leaving  him  to  present  his  own 
credentials,  as  did  the  editor  of  Jeremiah,  has  woven  a  statement 
of  his  own  into  that  of  his  author.  In  i'  and  7^,  on  the  other  hand, 
where  the  familiar  statement  is  neither  necessary  nor  appropriate, 
an  imitation  of  it,  with  the  third  person,  has  been  inserted,  much  to 
the  confusion  of  the  thoughtful  reader.  In  one  case  (7^)  the  same 
sort  of  a  statement  has  been  inserted  into  the  middle  of  a  para- 
graph, where  it  separates  a  formula  of  citation  from  the  words 
quoted,  the  editor  being  misled  by  the  familiar  "Thus  saith  Yah- 
weh,"  with  which  the  next  verse  begins,  into  supposing  that  he  had 
reached  the  beginning  of  a  new  prophecy.  These  changes  seem 
to  have  been  made  when  the  prophecies  were  added  to  the  collection 
known  as  "The  Minor  Prophets."  There  are  others  of  a  differ- 
ent character,  to  say  nothing  of  mere  mistakes  that  may  have  been 
made  at  any  time  since  these  oracles  became  public  property. 
Some  of  them  are  purely  explanatory.  A  simple  example  of  this 
class  is  the  clause,  which  is  the  month  Shebat,  in  i^.  More  im- 
portant is  the  explanation  of  the  filthy  garments  with  which  Joshua 
was  clothed  in  3^,  and  that  of  the  ephah  in  5*^,  both  of  which  are 
clearly  exegetical  glosses.  There  is  another  class  of  cases  in  which 
the  text  is  expanded  by  the  addition  of  details  or  other  matter  sug- 
gested in  certain  connections.  There  are  a  number  of  examples. 
See  the  phrase,  mounted  on  a  bay  horse,  in  i^,  and  the  parenthetical 
clause,  and  the  spirit  was  in  their  wings,  of  5®,  but  especially  in  4^^ 
the  entirely  new  feature  introduced  into  the  vision  of  the  golden 
lamp.  Finally,  there  are  a  few  cases  in  which  the  changes  or  addi- 
tions are  of  the  nature  of  corrections  representing  the  ideas  of  the 
reviser  rather  than  of  the  original  author.  See  2^/1^^,  where  Israel, 
at  least,  is  an  interpolation,  but  especially  6*",  where  the  name  of 
Joshua  has  been  substituted  for  that  of  Zerubbabel.  These  are 
but  specimens.  The  following  table  is  an  attempt  to  show  to  what 
extent  the  deliberate  modification  of  the  text  has  been  carried,  also 
in  what  degree  it  has  suffered  from  additions,  omissions  and  dis- 
tortions through  the  fault  of  careless  or  ignorant  transcribers.  The 
reasons  in  each  case  will  come  later. 


86 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VHI. 


ADDITION'S. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

I,  I.  Nojn — [n>Dna  ja] 

i^i:^  after  rimS. 

trnna  for  r-rnS  inNa; 

n>-\ai  Sn  for  •'^s. 

2.  The  whole  verse. 

'^nj  after  n^P- 

3.    .niN3X — 3XJ 

nrn  a;-n  n'-ixr  ':'s  ni,-!  at 
the  beginning. 

-\::n2  for  axj. 

4. 

1  before  Sn;    c»  from 

a^'?^Sj;cci. 

.■v 

6. 

7.  a^u- — Nin 

->cnS — ri-^n 

8.    01X — JD-\ 

9- 

10. 

II. 

mrr'  ix'^r;  for  c'^sn. 

12. 

13- 

14. 

15- 

16. 

riNji-  after  nini'. 

17- 

2'/l'8. 

22/119.  a'7-j'nM  SN-iir''  rx 

'j-<x  after  n'?N». 

23/iJO. 

2'/i2i.  anx  Ti->nnS 

icnS  for  ''Sn. 

THE   TEXT  OF   CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


87 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

I,  I. 
2. 

[Son  of  Berechiah] 
— prophet. 

The  whole  verse. 

The  king  after  Darius. 
very  before  angry. 

In  the  eighth  month  for 
OH  the  first  of  the  eighth 
month;  to  Zechariah 
for  to  me. 

3- 

saith— Hosts.2 

Call  to  the   remnant   of 
this  people,  at  the  be- 
ginning. 

said  for  saith. 

4. 

And  before  be;  from  be- 
fore your  evil  deeds. 

S- 

6. 

7- 

which  is  the  month 
Shebat;      came — 
saying. 

8. 

mounted   on  a  bay 
horse. 

9- 

10. 

II. 

The  angel  of  Yahweh  for 
the  man. 

12. 

13- 

14. 

15. 

16. 

of  Hosts  after  Yahweh.^ 

17- 

18/2 

^ 

'9/2 

.  Israel   and  Jeru- 
salem. 

Sir  before  what 

20/2 

_ 

21/24 

.  to  discomfit  them. 

saying  for  to  me. 

88 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VHI. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

2V1".    ]^? 

u'lN  for  iu'n; 

CNrjn  for  a'NU-jn; 
Sk  for  Sy, 

2*/K 

•/»• 

vSn  after  -^sni. 

v». 

NX''  for  3XJ. 

*/*' 

V'. 

•»/'•  1  before  lOj; 

i'2-lN3  for  ;'2-(X3. 

n^n> — ■-3 

"/'.  na 

'V-  ''Jn'^u' — nnx 

"I  before  ^123. 

»/.. 

'*/'*• 

"/". 

'S  for  iS; 

\njDCi  for  ]2V\ 

18/ II, 

"/"• 

3.1- 

nvT'  after  ■'JN-ci. 

2. 

InSd  after  icn'i. 

3- 

InSch  for  niH'  ^NSc. 

4.    1J1J7 — -\DNM» 

irx  caSmfor  i.-n  ira'^m. 

5.    1CN1 

B'aia  after  anja. 

ir:'t:-'  for  iC'U-i. 

6. 

7- 

a'a'i'np  for  a^a';'::?. 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


89 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

l2l/2< 

.  horn. 

a  man  for  that;  uplifted 
for  uplifted  themselves; 
to  for  against. 

2V«. 

V. 

to  him  after  /  said. 

V'. 

was  going  forth  for  was 
standing  there. 

v». 

V'. 

•/"'. 

and     before   Jlee; 
for — Yahweh. 

as  the  four  for  to  the  four. 

V". 

the  daughter  of. 

V". 

after  the  glory  he 
sent  me. 

the  before  glory. 

V". 

10/14 

"/"• 

to  me  for  to  him;  I  will 
dwell  for  Ive  will  dwell. 

iJ/ie 

n/17 

3.  I- 

Yahweh  before  showed. 

2. 

the  angel  of  before  Yah- 
weh.^ 

3- 

the  angel  for  the  angel  of 
Yahweh. 

4- 

and  he  said — thee. 

and  clothed  thee  for  and 
clothe  him. 

5- 

and  I  said. 

goodly  before  garments. 

let  them  put  for  a7id  put. 

6. 

"r. 

In  form. 

90 


ZECHiVRIAH 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

3.8. 

PCS — '«3«     :  '3  ' 

9- 

n:n 

lO. 

4,1- 

2. 

nyae' 

ncNM  for  ncNT,  nSji  for 
nnSji;  mpsis  nyari  for 
nipxicn  yju-i;  nnjS  for 

3- 

nSjn  pcD  for  nj^cc   or 

4. 

5- 

6. 

ncN  for  DNj. 

7- 

in  nns  ■•d  for  hn  jpn  13 
nnn(?). 

8. 

9- 

pj-'i'-i  for  onpiM. 

lO. 

II. 

12. 

The  entire  verse. 

n'^j  Sn  |cu'  after 

13- 

-»cnS 

14. 

^i-s 

5.1- 

2. 

3- 

iptt'?  ■'nu'3  after  ;'3rjn. 

ni;:3  nr?;'-^  for  naa  nr. 

4. 

THE   TEXT  OF  CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


91 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

3>8. 

/or;'    /or2 — Shoot. 

9- 

lo.^ 

10. 

4,1. 

2. 

sevens 

he  said  for  /  said;  in  a 
form;  seven  pipes  for 
the  seven  pipes;  the 
lights  for  the  bowl. 

3- 

the  bowl  for  it  or  <Ae 
lamp. 

4- 

5- 

6. 

said  for  saith. 

7- 

Who  art  thou,  mountain, 
for  i^or  I  will  make 
the  mountain  (?). 

8. 

9- 

thou  shall,  for  ye  shall, 
know. 

10. 

II. 

12. 

The  entire  verse. 

oil  after  discharge;  into 
the  before,   and   bowl 
after,  golden. 

13- 

saying. 

14. 

to  me  after  said. 

5.1- 

2. 

3. 

by  viy  name  falsely  after 
sweareth. 

on  one  side  like  it  twice 
for  how  long  now. 

4- 

92 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VHI. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

5.5- 

6. 

J.-NH -iSN'^l 

Dr>  for  0J1J7. 

7- 
8. 

'?«=  for  ':'];. 

9- 

OD'Djja  nn) 

lO. 

II. 

nn':ni  for  ^rfjni. 

6,1. 

2. 

3- 

D'^fCK 

4- 
5- 

'"''N  -»2-tn    after 
'^N  after  n'^N. 

lN':"?:n; 

6. 

n3  -irN 

iNX;'-2  for  iNi'\ 

7- 

Dip  yns  Sx  after 

■'f*^'.. 

D'XCNn  for  D'nxn;    ins; 
for  1NX1. 

8. 

\-1N 

9- 

lO. 

PK31 0V3 

ni|i'^  for  np'^;   'iSna    for 
"I'^n  tn;      rM::i    twice 
for  PNi;  nr«  for  dpn; 
INJ  for  N3. 

II. 

12. 

Snjn — nctri 

n  after  nnt-i. 

mop  for  n^op. 
vSn  for  bdiSn. 

13- 
14. 

The  entire  verse. 

n>B'N'>Si. 

wna  for  irD\ 
nitJyni  for   n^^pni;    pVi 
for  onSi. 

15- 

oo'n'^N — riTii 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


93 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

5,5 

6 

And  he  said- — land 

their   eye    for    their   in- 

7 
8 

iquity. 

to  for  upon. 

9 

and     Ihc     spirit — 
wings. 

lO 

II 

she  shall  be  deposited  for 
they  shall  deposit  her. 

6,1 

2 

3 

strong. 

4 

5 

that  was  speaking 

with 

me  after  angel;  to  after 

these. 

6 

That  in  which. 

have  gone  forth  twice  for 
shall  go  forth. 

7- 

to  the  east  country 
go  forth. 

after 

the  strong  for  the  bay ; 
have    gone  forth    for 

8 

me  after  called. 

shall  go  forth. 

9 

lO 

in    that    day    and 
come. 

In  the  form  of  take;  from 
Helday  for  Helday; 
from  Tobiah  for  To- 
biah;  from  Jedaiah 
for  Jedaiah;  thou  for 
with  them;  hath  for 
have,  come. 

II. 

and  place — priest. 

it  after  place. 

crowns  for  crown. 

12. 

saying  twice;    and 
upward  —  Yah- 
weh. 

to  him  for  to  them. 

13. 

throne  for  right  hand. 

14. 

The  entire  verse. 

and  to  Josiah. 

and  to  Hen  for  even  to 
them. 

15- 

And  it  shall — God. 

94 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VHI. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

7.    I- 

fD:3   :nnD; — n>n 

2. 

vrjNT — nSr'1   for   inSr^i 

3- 

-idnS' 

1  before  -\2n':'>. 

iT'a'?  for  n-aa;    ">Tjn   for 

4. 

5- 

6. 

7- 

PN  for  hSn. 

8. 

The  entire  verse. 

9- 

■c:^'? 

lO. 

1  before  iJ. 

II 

t]2D   for    0CJ3. 

12. 

inna  ronai  ns<i 

13- 

mN3S — p 

14. 

ot;dni  for  a^^^D-.^;  H'  for 

8,1. 

•''^N  after  pin3S. 

2. 

riN3X  after  nin^'. 

3- 

4- 

1  before  «'•'« 

5- 

6. 

ann  D''n''3 

7- 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


95 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

7,    I 

.   (he  word- — Zecha- 
rlah;  in  Kislew. 

2. 

that  Bethel  sent  Shereser 
and  Regem-melek  and 
his  men  for  that  the 
men  of  Bethel  sent. 

3- 

saying. 

and  before  to  speak. 

to  for  in  before  the  house; 
abstaining  for  or  ab- 
stain. 

4- 

5- 

6. 

7- 

Sign  of  ace.  for  these 
after  are  not. 

8. 

The   entire  verse. 

9- 

saying. 

lO. 

or  before  a  stranger. 

11. 

a  back  for  their  backs. 

12. 

even     the      words; 
through  his  spir- 
it. 

13- 

so  shall — Hosts. 

14. 

8,1. 

to  me  after  Hosts. 

I  scattered  for  he  scat- 
tered; upon  for  to  be- 
fore all  the  nations. 

2. 

of  Hosts  after  Yahweh. 

3- 

4- 

and  before  each. 

5- 

6. 

in  those  days. 

7- 

96 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VHI. 


ADDITIONS. 

OiMISSIOXS. 

ERRORS. 

8,8. 

9- 

mjanS  S3>nn 

lO. 

II. 

12. 

;-ii  for  >'iTN. 

13- 

Sntc"'  P^2^ 

14. 

'x  '■'  nsx' 

15. 

16. 

PDN' 

Di'-i-  for  oSr(?). 

17- 

irN 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

riN3s — u',-i:3^i 

22. 

23- 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   I-VIII 


97 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   I-VIII. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

8,8. 

9- 

the    temple    to    he 
built. 

lO. 

• 

II. 

12. 

seed  for  /  will  sow. 

13- 

and  house  of  Israel. 

14. 

said     Yahweh     of 
Hosts.* 

15- 

16. 

truth.* 

peaceful  for  perfect  {?). 

17- 

■which. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

even — Hosts. 

22. 

23- 

In  this  connection  mention  should  be  made  of  a  case  in  which  a  passage 
has  been  transferred  from  one  place  to  another.  The  passage  in  question  is 
4'"^  and  parts  of  vv.  ^  ^^^ '",  which,  as  will  be  explained  later,  seem  to  belong 
at  the  end  of  ch.  6. 


98  ZECHARIAH 

§  4.      THE   STYLE   OF   ZECHARIAH. 

The  analysis,  the  results  of  which  have  been  presented  in  the 
foregoing  table,  was  necessary  to  a  correct  and  defensible  opinion 
with  reference  to  Zechariah  as  a  writer  and  thinker.  Now  that  it 
has  been  made,  the  next  step  is  the  discussion  of  the  literary  form 
of  his  prophecies.  The  first  fact  that  strikes  one  on  taking  in  hand 
these  utterances  is  that,  like  those  of  Haggai,  they  are  all  dated. 
True,  in  two  cases  the  dates  are  defective,  but  this,  at  least  in  the 
first  instance,  is  not  the  fault  of  the  prophet.  There  seems  to  be 
no  reason  for  doubting  the  correctness  of  these  dates,  which  are 
confirmed  by  incidental  references  found  in  the  several  prophecies. 
Thus,  in  i*^  the  period  during  which  the  Jews  have  suffered  from 
the  indignation  of  Yahweh  is  seventy  years,  probably,  as  explained 
in  the  comments,  a  roimd  number  for  the  sixty-seven  that  had  actu- 
ally elapsed  since  the  beginning  of  the  Captivity.  See  also  4^  and 
6*^,  from  which  it  appears  that,  when  these  passages  were  written, 
work  on  the  second  temple  had  been  begun,  but  the  structure  had 
not  been  completed;  and  f,  from  which  it  seems  fair  to  infer 
that  it  was  nearing  completion,  as  would  have  been  the  case  in  the 
fourth,  if  it  was  finished  in  the  sixth,  year  of  Darius.     Cf.  Ezr.  6^^. 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  unlike 
those  of  Haggai,  are,  or  were,  all  written  in  the  first  person.  This 
fact  is  somewhat  obscured  by  editorial  additions,  which,  however, 
are  easily  detected.  Thus,  it  is  evident  that  in  i^  and  f  the  name 
and  parentage  of  the  prophet  are  secondary.  So  also  7®  entire. 
In  8S  on  the  other  hand,  lo  me  has  evidently  been  omitted.  This 
direct,  personal  mode  of  discourse  may  therefore  be  regarded  as 
quite  as  characteristic  of  Zechariah 's  style  as  it  is  of  that  of  Eze- 
chiel.*  It  is  calculated  to  excite  the  interest,  and  secure  the  con- 
fidence, of  the  reader. 

A  more  important  feature  of  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah  is  the 
number  of  visions  they  contain,  there  being  no  fewer  than  eight 
in  the  first  six  chapters.  Not  that  this  was  by  any  means  a  new 
method  of  conveying  religious  instruction.    Amos,  the  oldest  of 

*  In  Ez.  1  w.  -->»  have  been  added,  and  in  v.  '^  "  upon  me  "  changed  to  "  upon  him."  Toy, 
SBOT. 


HIS    STYLE  99 

the  writing  prophets,  employs  them;  nor  was  there  a  time  in  the 
history  of  the  chosen  people  when  they  were  not  more  or  less  pop- 
ular.    CJ.  Is.  6.     Thus  the  word  "vision"  actually  became  a  syn- 
onym for  prophecy.     This  method  of  presentation — for  it  finally 
became  a  purely  literary  device — is  found  in  its  most  complete  de- 
velopment in  the  book  of  Ezekiel.     It  is  not  Ezekiel,  however,  from 
f^hom  Zechariah  learned  to  use  visions,  but  Amos.     This  is  clear 
Ifrom  the  way  in  which  he  uses  them,  namely,  iji  groups,  and  for 
/Ue.purp_Qse,  not  of  stimulating  in  his  people  great  expectations  for 
\the  future,  but  of  impressing  upon  them  the  lessons  of  the  past 
Qnd  the  urgent  demands  of  the  present.    /Therefore,  much  as  he 
taught  by  visions,  it  would  be  a  mistake  and  an  injustice  to  call  him 
a  visionary.     In  fact,  there  is  none  of  the  later  prophets  who  is  more 
sane  and  practical. 

The  literary  form  chosen  by  Zechariah,  in  spite  of  his  fondness 
for  visions,  is  not  so  poetical  as  that  of  most  of  the  other  prophets. 
In  fact  it  is  generally  that  of  ordinary  Hebrew  prose.  Now  and 
then,  however,  especially  when  he  is  delivering  an  express  message 
from  Yahweh,  he  falls  into  a  rhythmical  movement,  and  most  fre- 
quently that  of  the  second  Isaiah.  In  some  cases  the  rhythmical 
passage  is  so  short,  containing  only  one  or  two  lines,  that  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  the  prophet  was  conscious  of  employing  the  metrical  form. 
In  I*  ^-  there  are  two  such  bits  of  poetry: 

Be  not  like  your  fathers,  to  u'liom  the  former  prophets  cried,  saying: 
Thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts, 
Return  from  your  evil  -ways, 
yea,  from  your  evil  deeds; 
but  they  did  not  hear,  nor  did  they  listen  to  me,  saith  Yahweh. 
Your  fathers, — ivhere  are  they? 

and  the  prophets, — do  they  live  forever? 

The  first  of  these  distichs  naturally  detaches  itself  from  the  con- 
text, but  the  second  seems  to  be  a  part  of  the  discourse  that  merely 
happens  to  be  rhythmical.  Like  this  latter  are  the  parallel  clauses 
in  i"*  2^^  4^  8'--  ^''.  There  are  other  cases  in  which  the  whole 
passage  is  rhythmical,  or  meant  to  be.  Brief  specimens  of  this 
sort  are  found  in  2^^^*  8^  (distichs)  i"  (tristrich)  8^  (tetrastich). 
Those  cited  from  8"  ^'  differ,  not  only  in  length,  but  in  measure 


lOO  ZECHARIAH 

Moreover,  the  tetrastich  is  not  as  symmetrical  in  form  as  it  is  in 
content.  In  8*  ^'  the  author  seems  to  have  abandoned  the  attempt 
to  be  poetical;  but  a  tristich  of  long  lines  could  be  produced  by 
dropping  the  phrase  playing  in  the  streets  from  v.  ^.  There  are 
three  other  passages  in  which  he  seems  to  have  intended  to  follow 
the  same  measure.  They  are  i'^*^-^^  3^  and  6'-^'".  Each  of  them 
contains  three  lines,  with  a  caesura  in  the  middle.  In  one  pas- 
sage, 2"''^°''^'''^,  omitting  v.  ^^/nb^  there  are  three  rather  tame  tris- 
tichs  and  a  final  distich.  It  is  thus  the  longest  of  the  poetical  pas- 
sages noted.  The  one  in  6^^  ^-j  however,  in  its  original  form  is  the 
best  example  of  this  form  of  composition  from  the  hand  of  the 
prophet.*  There  is  not,  however,  sufficient  difference  in  the  qual- 
ity of  the  last  four  examples  to  warrant  one  in  attributing  them, 
or  either  of  them,  to  any  other  than  Zechariah.  Finally,  there  are 
not  enough  of  these  passages  of  all  kinds  and  qualities  to  give  him 
a  claim  to  be  called  a  poet.  The  speeches  in  Hebrew  prose  are 
frequently  cast  in  a  metrical  form.     Cf.  Gn.  24^-  '. 

Every  writer,  even  the  most  prosaic,  has  his  favourite  forms  of 
expression.  Sometimes  they  are  original  with  himself,  but  they 
are  often  borrowed  from  other  authors.  In  the  former  case  they 
become  the  trade-mark  of  the  originator,  distinguishing  him  from 
all  others;  in  the  latter  they  may  be  equally  useful  for  critical  pur- 
poses. The  prophet  Zechariah  had  words,  and  phrases,  and  con- 
structions that  he  preferred  to  others. 

The  following  are  some  of  them: 

The  word  of  Yahweh  came  (was)  to  me  is  frequent  in  Jeremiah  and  Eze- 
chiel.  Originally  6  times.  Thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts  occurs  sometimes 
in  Jeremiah,  but  is  comparatively  more  frequent  in  Haggai.  Here  it  is  used 
17  times.  In  i'"  and  8'  riiN3X  (Hosls)  has  wittingly  or  unwittingly  been 
omitted.  Ye  shall  (thou  shall)  know  that  Yahweh  of  Hosts  hath  sent  me  to 
you  (^thee).  Cf.  v.  •""  4'  6".  The  infinitive  i::s'^  {saying)  is  noticeably  fre- 
quent in  these  chapters,  occurring  29  times.  The  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  is 
used  only  twice,  but  not  at  all  in  the  other  prophetical  books.  The  rhetorical 
question  is  frequent  in  Jeremiah  and  Haggai.  Here  it  is  used  11  times.  The 
participle  is  used  in  certain  constructions;  with  njn,  10,  without  it,  11  times; 
adverbially,  7  times.  Among  the  words  regarded  as  characteristic  of  Zecha- 
riah's  st>le  are:  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person;  only  in  its  briefer  form,  '>jn; 
take  pleasure,  "^na,  of  Yahweh,  3  times,  cf.  Is.  14';  purpose, UDi,  of  Yahweh, 

*  In  all  the  passages  cited,  cxrept  2"'"  "■,  such  expressions  as  saitk  Yahweh  must  be  neglected 
as  falling  outside  the  metrical  scheme. 


HIS   STYLE  lOl 

3  times,  cf.  Je.  4";  appease,  nSn,  3  times,  cf.  Je.  26''';  proclaim,  nip,  4  times, 
cf.  Is.  40'-  S;  re;«Ma«/,n''">N'r,  3  times,  cf.  Hg.  i'^;  return, 2Z',  is  used  adverbially 
in  the  sense  of  again  3  times,  cf.  Je.  18^;  <iwe//,  pU',  of  Yahweh,  twice,  of  men 
once,  cf.  Ex.  29";  midsi,  ^1^,  8  times,  cf.  Hg.  2^.  For  a  fuller  list,  with  some 
doubtful  numbers,  see  Eckardt,  ZAW.,  1893,  lo^ff- 

It  is  clear  from  the  above  list  that  the  language  of  Zechariah  can- 
not be  called  original.  His  favourite  modes  of  speech  are  almost 
without  exception  very  familiar  to  the  student  of  the  Old  Testament. 
He  got  them  from  preceding  prophets,  being,  like  Haggai,  most 
indebted  to  Jeremiah.  Indeed,  he  owes  his  predecessors  more 
than  these  characteristic  expressions.  He  himself  more  than  once 
reminds  his  people  that  he  is  only  repeating  the  message  of  "the 
former  prophets"  to  their  fathers,  i*  f-  ^^  8^,  and  his  prophecies 
show  that  he  was  acquainted  with  nearly  all  the  prophetical  books 
and  borrowed  liberally  from  several  of  them. 

The  following  are  the  passages  in  which  there  is  evidence  of  more  or  less 
dependence  on  his  predecessors:  First  there  are  some  in  which  the  prophet  re- 
produces to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the  language  of  others:  i'',  Return  from  your 
evil  ways,  yea, from  your  evildeeds,  cf.  Je.  25^.  1*,  As  Yahweh  of  Hosts  pur- 
posed to  do  to  us,  .  .  .  so  hath  he  done  with  us,  cf.  La.  2'".  i'',  Yahweh  will 
comfort  Zion,  cf.  Is.  51'.  2"/",  Silence,  all  flesh,  before  Yahweh/  for  he  hath 
roused  himself  from  his  holy  abode,  cf.  Hb.  2^".  3^,  Is  tiot  this  a  brand  plucked 
from  the  fire  ?  cf.  Am.  4".  s'".  Under  the  vine  and  the  fig  tree,  cf.  Mi.  4^.  8^,  They 
shall  be  to  me  a  people,and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  cf.  Ez.  i  i^o  36^8  3723. 27_  312^ 
The  earth  shull  yield  its  produce,  cf-Ez.  7,4,-''.  i^*,  I  purposed  to  do  you  evil .  .  . 
and  did  not  repent,  cf.  Je.  428.  It  is  plain  from  these  examples  that  Zechariah 
took  no  pains  to  reproduce  the  exact  words  of  earlier  writers.  There  is  not  a 
precise  quotation  among  them. 

In  the  passages  that  remain  to  be  cited  he  pays  still  less  attention  to  phrase- 
ology. Some  of  them  are  merely  allusions  to  previous  utterances,  i'-  he  re- 
fers to  the  seventy  years  of  Jc.  25",  cf.  Zc.  7'.  i'^  the  zeal  of  the  nations  is  con- 
demned as  in  Is.47'',c/'.  Is.  10  f-.  I 's is  in  substance  Is.  47^8,  but  there  seems  also 
to  be  an  allusion  to  Je.  3138/39,  jS/i  expands  the  thought  of  Je.  3138/39  ^nd  Is. 
49"  '■;  '-/■  ^Iso  Is.  54-.  2"5  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  Is.  4^  and  Hg.  i' 
or  2^  zioiib  is  a  gloss  suggested  by  Ez.  510,  and  2^"^'^,  after  the  glory  he  sent  me, 
is  another  gloss  suggested  by  Ez.  2'.  2 '3/9,  on  /  will  wave  my  hand,  see 
Is.  ii's  19I6.  2'5"i,  the  phrase,  many  nations,  points  to  Mi.  4^,  cf.  Is.  23. 
2i6/i2^  //e  will  find  pleasure  in  Jerusalem  seems  to  be  an  adaptation  of  Is.  14'. 
38,  the  reference  to  the  Shoot  is  a  gloss,  but  in  612  there  is  a  genuine  one  which 
is  evidence  of  acquaintance  with  Je.  23^.  4^  is  a  variation  on  Hg.  2^.  68,  on 
the  idea  of  assuaging  wrath  by  punishment,  see  Ez.  5'3,  etc.  7'  '•,  the  prophet 
has  in  mind  such  passages  as  Am.  52^  Ho.  6^  Is.  i'*  '•  Mi.  68  Je.  7^  ^^  for  the 
phrase  true  justice,  see  Ez.  188.  7"^  a  stubborn  shoulder  may  be  a  reminiscence 
of  Ho.  4"5,  and  stopped  their  ears  of  Is.  6"'.     8',  on  the  faithful  city,  see  Is.  i'^. 


I02  ZECHARIAH 

8'  is  a  reminiscence  of  Is.  43'  '  .  8'  ",  on  let  your  hands  be  strong,  see  Hg. 
2*.  8'",  a  reference  to  Hg.  i^  2"  '■,  or  the  conditions  there  described.  8"  '  , 
the  promise  of  Hg.  2"  '•  is  repeated,  cf.  Hg.  i'».  8",  the  prophet  may  well 
have  had  in  mind  Je.  31'""'.  8'^"  "■  again  recalls  Mi.  4^.  8-^  is  another  way 
of  putting  the  thought  of  Is.  45'*. 

The  number  of  passages  noted  does  not  at  first  sight  seem  large, 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  chs.  4-6,  owing  to  the  character 
of  their  content,  could  not  be  expected  to  furnish  many.  In  point 
of  fact,  there  are  but  three  to  represent  them.  The  showing  as  a 
whole,  therefore,  justifies  Kohler's  remark  (25),  that  "Zechariah 
got  his  schooling,  not  from  the  culture  or  religion  of  the  Babyloni- 
ans, but  from  the  prophets  of  his  own  people." 


§  5.      THE   TEACHING   OF  ZECHARIAH. 

The  indebtedness  of  Zechariah  to  his  predecessors  must  be  rec- 
ognised, but  the  extent  of  this  dependence  may  very  easily  be 
overestimated.  That  he  was  not  a  mere  plagiarist  or  imitator  is 
clear  from  the  frankness  with  which  he  cites  "the  former  proph- 
ets" and  the  freedom  with  which  he  adapts  their  language  to  his 
own  taste  or  purpose.  It  becomes  still  clearer  when  an  attempt  is 
made  to  master  the  content  of  his  prophecies. 

Take  first  the  visions.  They  were  apparently,  as  has  been  ob- 
served, suggested  by  those  of  Amos.  They  remind  one,  however, 
of  the  elder  prophet,  not  by  any  similarity  in  the  scenes  portrayed, 
but  by  the  methodical  way  in  which  they  are  handled,  the  first 
three,  as  will  be  shown,  picturing  the  restoration  already  partially 
accomplished,  the  next  two  the  organisation  of  the  new  community, 
and  the  last  three  the  removal  of  sin  as  a  menace  to  its  prosperity, 
even  to  its  existence.  The  individual  visions  differ  decidedly  from 
those  of  Amos,  and,  indeed,  from  those  of  all  the  other  prophets 
who  employ  this  means  of  instruction.  In  the  ordinary  vision  Yah- 
weh  appears  to  his  servant  and  addresses  him  directly,  with  or  with- 
out the  aid  of  symbols.  Of  the  former  class  are  those  of  Jeremiah, 
as  well  as  those  of  Amos.  Cf.  Je.  i"  "^-j  etc.  A  good  example 
is  the  impressive  theophany  of  Is.  6.  In  Ezekiel,  also,  Yahweh  is 
sometimes  his  own  interpreter (i^*),  but  in  the  latter  partof  the  book 


HIS   TEACHING  103 

an  angel,  according  to  Kraetzschmar  the  angel  of  Yahweh,  appears 
in  the  vision  and  explains  his  own  movements.  Cf.  40^  ^•.  The 
visions  of  Zechariah  mark  a  further  development  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. In  them  also  the  angel  of  Yahweh  represents  the  Deity,  but 
there  is  another  angel,  described  as  "the  angel  that  was  speaking 
to  me,"  who  takes  no  part  in  the  action,  his  sole  function  being  the 
explanation  of  what  goes  forward.  This  interpreter,  who  is  pres- 
ent in  all  the  visions,  and  speaks  in  all  but  the  fourth  (3^  ^•),is  orig- 
inal, so  far  as  can  be  determined,  with  Zechariah . 

The  interpreter  is  only  one  of  many  angels  who  appear  in  the 
visions.  In  the  first  there  are  the  messengers  who  report  on  the 
condition  of  the  earth  (i^^) ;  in  the  fourth  the  attendants  of  the  angel 
of  Yahweh  (3^) ;  and  in  the  others  additional  members  of  the  heav- 
enly host,  each  with  his  peculiar  functions.  Not  even  in  the  book 
of  Daniel  are  these  celestial  beings  so  constantly  in  evidence.  In 
fact,  they  constitute  an  order  of  intermediaries  between  a  tran- 
scendent Deity  and  his  mimdane  creatures,  and,  as  such,  are  con- 
stantly employed  in  the  execution  of  the  divine  will.  Among  them, 
in  the  fourth  vision,  appears  the  Adversary,  a  being  of  Uke  rank  but 
of  very  different  character.  He,  also,  is  a  feature  of  Zechariah 's 
prophecies,  being,  in  fact,  found  here  for  the  first  and  only  time 
in  the  prophetical  literature.  On  the  development  of  the  idea  that 
he  represents,  see  the  comments. 

There  is  another  feature  of  these  visions  that  deserves  attention : 
there  is  nothing  intentionally  mysterious  or  enigmatical  about 
them.  The  prophet  does  not  hesitate  here,  as  elsewhere,  to  men- 
tion names.  Thus,  in  the  fourth  (3^)  Joshua  is  expressly  named, 
and  in  the  fifth  (4")  the  only  reason  why  both  Zerubbabel  and 
Joshua  are  not  named  is  that  it  is  perfectly  clear  from  other  pas- 
sages who  are  meant.  In  thus  dealing  openly  with  the  men  and 
events  of  his  own  time  Zechariah  follows  the  example  of  the  earlier 
prophets  and  differs  from  some  other  biblical  authors. 

In  the  direct  teaching  of  Zechariah  there  is  nothing  very  surpris- 
ing. Indeed,  perhaps  the  most  noticeable  thing  about  it,  as  a 
whole,  is  its  simplicity  and  sobriety:  which  is  equivalent  to  saying 
that  the  prophet,  though  not  as  great  as  some  of  his  predecessors, 
was  well  adapted  for  the  task  to  which  he  believed  himself  com- 


I04  ZECHARIAH 

missioned.  It  was  a  day  of  small  things.  In  such  circumstances 
some  would  have  been  provoked  to  extravagance,  as  if  it  were  a 
virtue  to  look  for  that  which  there  are  no  grounds  for  expecting. 
He  looked  for  greater  and  better  things,  but  he  did  not  allow  him- 
self or  his  people  to  expect  them  to  come  over  night,  or  remain,  ex- 
cept on  very  prosaic  conditions,  and  it  was  his  sobriety  that  fitted 
him  for  leadership  during  the  Restoration. 

His  sobriety  is  seen  in  the  modesty  of  the  dimensions  he  assigns 
to  the  restored  kingdom.  There  is  no  mention  of  Israel  or  the 
territory  once  occupied  by  the  Ten  Tribes,  for,  although  the  name 
appears  twice  {2^/1^'^)  in  the  Massoretic  text,  in  both  cases  it  is 
clearly  an  interpolation.  He  seems,  therefore,  to  have  thought  of 
this  kingdom  as  about  coterminous  with  the  former  kingdom  of 
Judah.  He  saw  room  enough  there,  however,  for  Jerusalem  to 
expand  into  a  great  city,  to  which  "many  peoples  and  mighty 
nations"  would  come  to  worship  the  true  God.     Cf.  8"^. 

Zechariah  follows  Haggai  in  recognising  Zerubbabel  as  the  Mes- 
siah and  the  restorer  of  the  Davidic  dynasty.  He  differs  from  his 
associate,  however,  in  his  treatment  of  Joshua.  Haggai  seems  dis- 
posed to  exalt  Zerubbabel  at  the  expense  of  the  high  priest,  while 
Zechariah  assigns  to  the  latter  a  position  and  dignity  little  less  than 
royal;  for  although,  as  will  be  explained,  it  is  Zerubbabel  who,  in 
6",  is  to  "receive  majesty  and  sit  and  rule  on  his  throne,"  Joshua 
will  occupy  a  place  "at  his  right  hand."  This  concession  was 
required  by  the  increased  importance  of  the  priesthood  after  the 
Exile,  but  it  is  one  which,  to  judge  from  the  general  tenor  of  his 
prophecies,  Zechariah  would  have  made,  even  if  he  himself  had 
not  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  order. 

The  good  time  coming  is  described  by  some  of  the  prophets  in 
the  most  extravagant  terms.  One  of  them  in  Is.  65-"  promises  that 
then  every  one  will  live  at  least  a  hundred  years.  There  is  nothing 
of  this  kind  in  Zechariah 's  prophecies.  There  are  old  men  and 
women  in  his  picture  of  the  future,  but  they  are  as  natural  and 
recognisable  as  his  "boys  and  girls  playing  in  the  streets."  Cf. 
8*  *•.  Their  happiness,  too,  is  perfectly  intelligible.  "The  vine 
shall  yield  its  fruit,  and  the  earth  shall  yield  its  produce,  and  heaven 
shall  grant  its  dew."     Cf.  8'-.     Why,  then,  should  not  "the  house 


HIS   TEACHING  105 

of  Judah"  even  change  the  fasts  of  the  Exile  into  occasions  of 
"joy  and  gladness,  even  pleasant  feasts"?    Cf.  8^^. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  on  the  subject  of  Zechariah's 
teaching  to  show  that,  in  spite  of  his  fondness  for  visions,  he^isjigt_« 
to  be  classed  with  the  apocalyptists  of  the  Old  Testament.  There 
is  fiurther  evidence  to  the  same  effect.  It  is  found  in  his  constant 
regard  for,  and  emphasis  on,  ethical  considerations.  He,  unlike 
Haggai,  makes  them  prominent  from  the  start;  for,  in  his  intro- 
ductory message,  he  tells  his  people  bluntly  that  their  fathers  suf- 
fered for  their  sins  and  that  they  themselves  will  be  held  strictly 
accountable  for  their  conduct.  He  announces  the  basal  doctrine 
of  his  prophecies  as  well  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  divine 
government  when  he  says,  "Return  unto  me,  saith  Yahweh  of 
Hosts,  and  I  will  return  unto  you." 

This  doctrine  underlies  the  last  three  visions,  the  first  of  which 
teaches  that,  although  Yahweh  may  not  again  pimish  his  people 
by  wholesale  banishment  from  their  country,  he  will  see  to  it  that 
the  individual  sinner  gets  his  deserts.  In  the  second  the  thought  is 
that  Yahweh  will  not  tolerate  a  rival  in  his  own  land,  and  in  the 
third  that  the  ultimate  fate  of  such  rivals,  wherever  worshipped,  is 
destruction. 

One  point  more.  It  concerns  the  ethical  precepts  that  Zechariah 
lays  down  in  the  last  chapter.  They  are  not  by  any  means  new. 
"The  former  prophets"  also  taught  them.  It  is  interesting,  how- 
ever, to  compare  those  here  taught  with  those  which  Zechariah  in 
7®  ^-  attributes  to  his  predecessors.  The  difference  is  doubtless 
to  some  extent  due  to  changed  circumstances.  The  Persian  gov- 
ernment, in  spite  of  its  remoteness,  seems  to  have  been  able  to  pre- 
vent the  cruelty  to  widows  and  orphans  and  strangers  of  which  the 
earlier  prophets  complained.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  emphasis  is 
here  placed  on  loyalty  to  truth  and  simple  justice.  In  8^®  he 
comprehends  all  duty  in  the  brief  maxim,  "Love  truth  and 
peace,"  a  maxim  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  ideal  of  the  future, 
when,  as  he  says  in  3**',  his  people,  blessed  with  perfect  peace  and 
unity,  will  "invite  every  man  his  neighbour  under  the  vine  and 
the  lig  tree." 

The  primary  object  of  the  above  discussion  was  to  prepare  the 


Io6  ZECHARIAH 

reader  for  the  sympathetic  and  appreciative  study  of  the  prophecies 
universally  attributed  to  Zechariah;  but  it  is  evident  that  it  will 
serve  the  further  purpose  of  providing  the  basis  for  a  comparison 
between  them  and  those  whose  genuineness  is  questioned  in  the 
Introduction  to  the  last  six  chapters  of  the  book  called  by  his  name. 


COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PROPHECIES 
OF  ZECHARIAH. 

The  book  of  Zechariah  has  no  proper  title,  but  the  first  verse 
contains,  in  addition  to  the  date  of  the  opening  prophecy,  the  sub- 
stance of  such  a  title.  If  it  had  been  fully  and  definitely  expressed, 
it  would  probably  have  taken  the  form  of  that  of  the  book  of  Joel, 
namely.  The  word  of  Yahweh,  which  came  to  ZecJtariah,  the  son  of 
Berechiah,  the  son  of  Iddo,  tJie  prophet.  In  that  case,  however,  the 
first  verse  would  have  been,  in  part  (the  word  of  Yahweh  was  to), 
a  repetition  of  the  title.  This  is  probably  the  reason  why  the  edi- 
tor by  whom  the  author  of  the  book  was  identified  chose  to  insert 
the  name  and  pedigree  of  the  prophet  into  the  first  verse  and  thus 
make  it  answer  the  piurpose  of  a  general  title  as  well  as  a  date  for  the 
introductory  prophecy.  The  fact  that  the  verse  actually  serves  this 
double  purpose  makes  it  proper  to  discuss  further  some  features  of 
it  in  this  preliminary  paragraph.  The  most  important  is  the  name 
of  the  prophet.  This  name,  meaning  Yahweh  remembereth*  is  of 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Old  Testament.  According  to  the 
Chronicler  it  was  borne  by  at  least  five  persons  belonging  to  the  time 
of  David,  f  but,  since  there  are  only  two  other  names  of  the  same 
form  mentioned  in  the  earlier  literature,  J  it  is  not  probable  that 
this  one  is  much  older  than  the  date  of  its  first  appearance  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  eighth  century  b.  c.§  From  that  time  onward, 
however,  like  the  rest  of  its  class,  it  became  increasingly  common, 
especially  among  the  priests  and  Levites.  Indeed  it  seems  to  have 
been  the  prime  favourite  among  the  names  of  the  Old  Testament, 

*  For  a  discussion  of  rejected  etymologies,  see  Kohler,  i  if. 

t  C/.  I  Ch.  15I8  242=  262-  "  jT^i.  So  Gray,  HPN.,  288.  McPherson  (DB.)  distinguishes 
seven  so  designated  in  this  early  period.     Cj.  i  Ch.  9"  15^. 

t  Benaiah,  2  S.  8'^  and  Shephatiah,  2  S.  3^ 

§  CI.  Is.  8-;  also  2  K.  14'  iS-.  There  is  another  related  class  of  names,  that  in  which  the  pf. 
of  a  verb  is  preceded,  instead  of  being  followed,  by  n>  or  in\  examples  of  which  occur  in  the  ear- 
liest Hebrew  records.  C/.  Jehoiada  (2  S.  8'8),  Jonathan  (Ju.  S^"),  etc.  These  disappear  as  the 
others  increase  in  frequency.    Cf.  Gray,  HPN.,  176  /. 

107 


Io8  ZECHARIAH 

being  borne  by  no  fewer  than  twenty-nine  different  persons.* 
The  identity,  personal  history  and  the  literary  characteristics  of 
the  one  here  meant  have  already  been  discussed  in  the  Introduc- 
tion. It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  that  it  is  he,  and  not  his  father 
or  grandfather,  who  is  here  described  as  the  prophet. 

The  Title. — 1.  The  reasons  for  believing  that  the  verse  has  been  re- 
cast are  as  follows:  One  of  the  peculiarities  of  these  chapters  is  the  use  of 
the  first  person.  It  appears  repeatedly  in  the  introductorj'  formula, 
Then  cattie  the  word  of  Yahweh  to  me.  Cf.  6'  "]*  8'-  '*.  In  i'  and  7'-  ^  as 
will  be  shown,  it  is  an  interpolation.  In  this  case,  therefore,  it  is  fair  to 
suppose  that  the  original  reading  was  'Sn,  and  that  the  name  and  lineage 
of  the  prophet  were  substituted  for  the  pronominal  suffix.  This  is  a 
simpler  and  more  natural  explanation  than  to  suppose,  with  Bu.  {ZA  W., 
1906,  5/.),  that  a  once  independent  title  has  been  absorbed  in  the  first 
verse.  Cf.  Ez.  i-  '•,  where  a  less  skilful  hand  has  attempted  the  same 
thing  and  made  a  botch  of  it. — ^1313]  Sometimes  '3 ;  v. '  VT'sna.  The  im- 
possibility of  harmonising  this  passage  with  Ezr.  5'  6"  Ne.  12",  as  ex- 
plained in  the  Introduction,  makes  it  necessary  to  attribute  the  phrase  p 
in>3n3  to  a  careless  reader  who  identified  the  prophet  of  the  Restoration 
with  the  Zechariah  of  Is.  8^. — n>']  Elsewhere  in  Heb.  (v.  "  Ne.  12^-  '«),  as 
well  as  Aram.  (Ezr.  5'  6"),  xny;  here  also,  according  to  19  Kenn.  mss. 
The  form  here  found,  however,  is  used  of  other  persons  (i  Ch.  6*  2  Ch. 
j2is  13K).  (g  has  Di6i''A55cli;  Jer.  filium  Adda.  Lowe  explains  vlbv  as  a 
scribal  error  for  viov;  but  perhaps  tov  /Sapax'oy  is  a  correction  based  on 
the  gloss  ■T'Dia  p;  in  which  case  vlbv  must  have  been  the  original  read- 
ing.— xojn]  Om.  S*-^.  The  Mas.  are  responsible  for  the  identification 
of  the  prophet  with  Iddo,  since  they  accented  the  text  so  that  it  could  not 
be  interpreted  otherwise. 

The  contents  of  these  eight  chapters,  as  already  intimated,  nat- 
urally fall  into  three  parts.  I.  The  introduction  (i'"^).  2.  A  series 
of  visions,  with  their  interpretations  (1^-6'^).    3.  A  new  era  (7-8). 

I.    THE   INTRODUCTION  (i^-«). 

It  consists  of  an  exhortation  backed  by  a  reminder  of  the  past 
experience  of  the  Jews,  the  result  of  their  disregard  for  the  warn- 
ings of  former  prophets. 

♦  The  popularity  of  the  name  is  equally  evident,  even  if  it  is  sometimes  applied  by  the  Chron- 
icler to  imaginary  persons,  for  he  would  not  have  used  it  so  frequently  if  it  had  not  been  very 
common  in  his  generation.     C/.  Gray,  HPN.,  188  j. 


I'-"  109 

1.  This  introduction,  like  the  main  divisions  by  which  it  is  fol- 
lowed, has  a  date.  The  date  here  found,  however,  differs  from 
the  other  two  in  being  incomplete;  for,  while  the  year  and  the  month 
are  given,  the  day  is  wanting.  It  may  have  been  omitted  intention- 
ally, as  in  Ezr.  3^  7^  and  elsewhere;  but  the  more  common  opinion 
is,  either  that  it  is  implied  in  the  word  rendered  month,  ^in,  which 
is  sometimes,  for  example,  2  S.  20^  *^-,  properly  translated  new  moon, 
or  that  it  has  been  lost  in  the  process  of  transcription.  The  former 
of  these  views,  though  adopted  by  Kimchi  and  other  scholars,  must 
be  rejected  as  being  entirely  without  real  foundation  in  Hebrew 
usage.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  repeated  examples  showing 
that  the  first  as  well  as  the  other  days  of  the  month  was  indicated 
by  a  distinct  number.  Cf.  Gn.  8^  Hg.  i\  etc.  If,  therefore,  Zech- 
ariah  intended  to  say,  as  the  Syriac  Version  says  he  did,  that  this 
opening  prophecy  was  delivered  on  the  first  day  of  the  eighth  month, 
the  month  originally  called  Bui  (i  K.  6^^),  but  later  Marchesvan, 
the  word  or  words  indicating  the  day  must  have  been  lost  in  trans- 
mission. So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  Haggai's  first  prophecy  is 
dated  the  first  of  the  sixth  month  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of 
Darius  Hystaspes.  If,  therefore,  the  Syrian  reading  is  correct, 
Zechariah  began  his  prophetic  career  just  two  months  later, 
namely,  about  the  middle  of  October,  520  B.C.  In  any  case  it 
was  not  three  months  before  this  his  first  prophecy  was  delivered. 
In  recording  it  he  did  not,  as  is  done  in  the  present  text,  use 
the  third  person,  but,  as  has  been  shown,  the  first,  so  that  the 
latter  half  of  this  verse  should  read,  came  the  word  of  Yahweh  to 
me,  saying.^ 

2.  The  reading  suggested  is  not  favoured  by  the  immediate  con- 
text. If  Zechariah  actually  used  the  language  just  attributed  to 
him,  in  this  second  verse  Yahweh  should  be  the  speaker  and  the 
prophet  the  person  addressed.  This  is  not  the  case,  the  statement 
made  being  made,  not  by,  but  about,  the  Almighty,  and  addressed 
apparently  to  the  people.  It  will  not,  however,  do  to  reject  the 
proposed  reading  on  that  account,  as  appears  when  one  passes 
from  this  verse  to  the  one  following.     It  then  becomes  clear,  not 

*  CI.  6'  7*  8'-  •'.     On  the  passages  that  do  not  follow  thisformula  (i'  and  7'-  *),  see  the  cor- 
responding notes  and  comments. 


no  ZECHARIAH 

only  that  there  is  no  connection  between  the  two,  but  that  v.  ^  has 
precisely  the  form  that  this  one  should  have  taken.  The  natural 
inference  is  that  the  statement  Yahweh  was  very  wroth  with  your 
fathers  is  an  interpolation.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  explain  why  it 
should  have  been  inserted.  Perhaps  a  copyist,  finding  the  text 
defective,  supplied  the  place  of  the  missing  words  as  well  as  he 
could  from  f^,  where  the  prophet  refers  to  the  wrath  of  Yahweh 
against  the  fathers. 

3.  In  AV.  this  verse  begins  with  Tlierefore  say,  etc.,  this  being 
the  only  way  in  which  the  present  text  can  well  be  rendered;  but 
so  rendered  it  can  hardly  convey  the  thought  that  the  prophet  had 
in  mind.  He  would  not  have  represented  Yahweh  as  commanding 
him  to  deliver  the  message  that  follows,  a  message  requiring  his 
people  to  return  to  him,  because  he  (Yahweh)  had  been  wroth  with 
their  fathers.  Nor  is  the  connection  improved  by  the  omission  of 
v.  ^;  for  the  statement  the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  me  contains  no 
reason  for  the  command  given.  It  must  have  had  its  ground  in 
something  that  Yahweh  himself  had  previously  said.  The  same 
result  is  reached  if  the  connective  is  translated  literally  and.  In 
other  words,  as  has  already  been  intimated,  the  text  here  lacks 
several  words,  which  must  be  supplied  to  make  it  completely  in- 
telligible. In  the  first  place,  there  must  have  been  at  least  one 
preceding  verb  having  the  sense  of  speak,  or  perhaps,  as  Budde 
suggests,  cry  (preach),  a  favourite  vA\.\\  Zechariah  (w.  ■*•  "■  "  7^); 
and  this,  if  the  present  text,  so  far  as  it  has  been  preserved,  is  cor- 
rect, must  have  been  followed  by  an  indirect  object,  perhaps  this 
people  or  the  remnant  of  this  people  (8*^-  "■ '"),  the  antecedent  of  the 
pronoun  them.  The  original  reading  would  thus  be,  Preach  {cry) 
to  the  remnant  of  this  people  and  say  to  them,  or  something  equiv- 
alent, which  would  appropriately  follow  the  statement  of  v.  *  and 
introduce  the  message  he  has  to  deliver,  Return  to  me,  and  I  will 
return  to  you,  saith  Yahweh.  It  does  not  at  once  appear  what  is 
meant  by  this  message,  in  what  respect  the  people  have  departed 
from  God  and  how  they  should  return  to  him.  The  fact  that  the 
prophecy  is  dated  a  little  after  the  appeal  by  which  Haggai,  with 
the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  brought  the  Jews  to  undertake  the  restoration 
of  the  temple,  would  lead  one  to  expect  such  an  arraignment  for 


I'-"  III 

selfish  absorption  in  private  affairs  as  is  found  at  the  beginning  of 
the  preceding  book.  Cj.  Hg.  i*-  ^.  It  appears,  however,  from 
what  immediately  follows  (v.  ^),  but  more  clearly  from  later  utter- 
ances (7^  ^-  8*^  ^-  '^),  that,  to  Zechariah,  although  he  himself  was  a 
priest,  a  temple  was  not  the  only,  or  the  greatest,  need  from  which 
his  people  were  suffering;  nor  was  its  splendour  his  measure  for 
their  future  welfare.  Here,  therefore,  the  return  to  Yahweh  must 
be  interpreted,  not  merely  as  the  restoration  of  the  national  wor- 
ship at  Jerusalem,  but  as  the  resumption  of  the  practice  of  the  social 
virtues,  justice,  mercy,  and  the  like,  on  which  the  main  stress  was 
laid  by  the  earlier  prophets.  CJ.  Am.  5^^-  ^^  Is.  i",  etc.  The 
promise  by  which  the  people  are  encouraged  to  return  to  Yahweh 
must  be  interpreted  to  correspond  to  the  exhortation;  not,  there- 
fore, as  a  means  of  exciting  visions  of  material  splendour,  but 
of  wakening  an  expectation  of  imiversal  well-being  in  a  divinely 
ordered  community.     CJ.  8^. 

4.  Yahweh,  not  content  with  taking  the  first  step  toward  a  re- 
union between  himself  and  his  people,  next  seeks,  in  the  most  per- 
suasive terms,  to  show  them  the  folly  of  rejecting  his  overtures. 
Be  not,  he  pleads,  as  your  Jathers,  and  then  proceeds  to  describe 
those  whose  example  he  wishes  to  prevent  them  from  following. 
They,  also,  were  wanderers  from  Yahweh,  and  Yahweh  sought 
them.  His  agents  were  thejormer  prophets.  It  is  possible  to  in- 
terpret these  words  too  broadly.  There  would  be  an  apparent 
warrant  for  so  doing  if  v.  ^^  were  throughout  genuine.  It  is  not, 
the  name  "Israel"  in  that  passage,  like  "the  house  of  Israel"  in 
8^^,  being  without  doubt  an  interpolation.  The  correction  of  the 
text  in  these  two  passages  leaves  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah  with- 
out recognisable  allusions  to  the  northern  kingdom.  It  is  Judah 
and  Jerusalem  over  whose  past  he  grieves  (i^^-  ^*)  and  for  whose 
future  he  cares.  CJ.  2^'  8^^.  The  prophets  to  whom  he  refers 
must,  therefore,  be  those  who  laboured  in  Judah,  especially  those 
of  the  closing  years  of  the  Jewish  monarchy.  It  was  their  preach- 
ing whose  burden  was,  Return  Jrom  your  evil  ways,  yea,Jrom  your 
evil  deeds.  He  seems  to  have  had  more  particularly  in  mind  Jere- 
miah, who  several  times  uses  almost  exactly  the  language  here 
quoted.     In  25*  ^'  the  setting  also  is  the  same.    The  passage  reads, 


112  ZECHARIAH 

"And  he  sent  to  you  all  his  servants  the  prophets,  sent  them  early, 
— but  ye  did  not  hear,  neither  did  ye  indine  your  ears  to  listen, — 
saying,  Return,  each  from  his  evil  way  and  from  the  evil  of  his 
deeds,  and  dwell  on  the  soil  that  Yahweh  gave  to  you  and  your 
fathers  for  ever  and  ever."  Cf.  also  35^^.  Less  exact  parallels 
are  found  in  18^  and  Ez.  33".  The  remaining  words  of  this  verse, 
too,  were  evidently  borrowed  from  Jeremiah,  but  they  are  here  ap- 
plied to  Jeremiah's  own  generation  rather  than  to  any  that  had  pre- 
ceded it.  Cf.  especially  36^^-. — 5.  One  naturally  expects  the 
prophet's  characterisation  of  the  fathers  to  be  followed  immediately 
by  a  description  more  or  less  vivid  of  the  fate  that  their  flagrant  and 
incorrigible  neglect  of  Yahweh  brought  upon  them;  and  at  first  this 
verse  seems  to  answer  that  expectation.  Your  fathers,  he  says,  as 
if  he  were  about  to  make  a  statement  concerning  them,  then  sud- 
denly changes  the  construction  and  asks,  with  a  brevity  that  is  very 
dramatic,  where  are  they?  This  question  reminds  one  of  Is.  51^^, 
"When  he  taketh  his  aim  to  destroy, — where  is  the  fury  of  the  op- 
pressor?" the  author  of  which,  as  appears  from  the  next  verse, 
meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  oppressors  of  the  exiled  Jews 
would  themselves  speedily  be  swept  out  of  existence.  A  similar 
interpretation  in  this  case  would  suit  the  preceding  context  and 
accord  with  the  facts  of  history.  It  was  therefore  adopted  by  some 
of  the  earlier  commentators,  Jewish  and  Christian.*  It  is  for- 
bidden by  the  latter  half  of  the  verse,  ajid  the  prophets, — do  they 
live  forever?  for  it  is  incredible  that  Zechariah  would  have  repre- 
sented Yahweh  as  destroying  his  messengers  with  those  who  ig- 
nored their  message.  Jerome  attempted  to  meet  this  objection  by 
identifying  the  prophets  here  meant  with  the  false  prophets,  who 
played  an  important  part  in  the  later  history  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah ;  but  it  is  clear  that  in  the  preceding  and  following  verses  they 
are  the  predecessors  of  Zechariah,  and  the  connection  requires  that 
the  term  here  have  the  same  meaning.  Cf.  also  f-  *-.  Nor  is  it 
necessary,  as  in  the  Targum,-|-  to  put  the  second  question  into  the 
mouths  of  the  people.  The  two  can  be  harmonised  by  supposing 
that  the  prophet  is  here  thinking  of  the  fathers  and  the  prophets 
as  merely  two  classes  of  men,  alike  mortal,  in  comparison  with  Yah- 

*  So  Theod.  Mops.,  Dm.,  Marck.  t  So  also  van  Hoonacker. 


r-  113 

weh  and  his  eternal  purposes. — 6.  The  contrast  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet  is  strongly  expressed  by  the  adversative  But,  with  which 
this  verse  begins.  It  is  not  a  contrast  between  men  and  God,  but 
between  men  and  the  words  and  decrees,  or  the  words  as  embodied 
in  the  decrees,  of  Yahweh  promulgated  through  his  servants  the 
prophets.  The  words  of  Yahweh  seem  to  be  personified  here,  as  is 
"the  word  of  Yahweh  "  in  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  Thus, 
Ps.  147^^  reads,  "He  sendeth  his  command  upon  earth;  swiftly  run- 
neth his  word."  A  more  significant  example  is  found  in  Is.  55", 
where  the  great  prophet  of  the  Exile  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
Deity  these  words: 

So  shall  it  be  with  my  word, 

that  goeth  forth  from  my  mouth: 
It  shall  not  return  to  me  empty; 

nor  until  it  hath  done  what  I  willed, 
and  prospered  in  that  for  which  I  sent  it. 

Zechariah  pictures  these  punitive  decrees  of  Yahweh  as  intelli- 
gent agents,  like  the  angels,  sent  forth  to  execute  upon  offenders 
the  decisions  of  the  divine  will.  Cf.  5^.*  At  any  rate,  with  another 
of  his  rhetorical  questions  he  asks,  did  they  not  overtake  your  fa- 
thers? referring,  of  course,  to  the  calamities,  repeatedly  predicted 
by  Jeremiah  and  others,  which  befell  the  Jews  in  the  overthrow  of 
their  government  and  the  banishment  of  the  better  classes  of  the 
country  to  Babylonia.  Here,  having  reached  a  climax,  he  might 
have  stopped.  Indeed,  it  is  only  so  far  that  the  conduct  of  the 
fathers  is  reprehensible,  and  therefore  not  to  be  imitated.  The  rest 
of  the  verse,  however,  has  its  justification.  It  adds  an  item,  then 
they  returned,  which  enlarges  the  scope  of  the  narrative,  thereby 
giving  it  the  character  of  a  positive  rather  than  a  negative  lesson. 
Nor  is  this  all.  The  words  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  fathers  are 
at  the  same  time  an  evidence  of  a  changed  attitude  toward  Yahweh 
and  a  vindication  of  Yahweh  himself  as  a  God  of  truth  and  the 
prophets  as  his  messengers.  This  is  their  testimony:  As  Yahweh 
of  Hosts  purposed  to  do  to  us,  according  to  our  ways  and  according 
to  our  deeds,  so  hath  he  done  with  us.     It  is  calculated  to  produce 

*  Cj.  Piepenbring,  TheoL,  250;   cp.  Dillmann,  Theol.,  345/. 


114  ZECHARIAH 

the  conviction  that,  as  Theodoret  of  Mopsuestia  puts  it,  "the  truth 
of  the  divine  words  is  beyond  question,  and  these  words  cannot  be 
neglected  with  impunity." 

1.  0  inserts  after  the  number  of  the  month  ^i««i.».'o  ^.ttO  =inN3 
U'-in*^.  This  is  an  allowable  arrangement,  being  actually  found  in  2  K. 
258;  but  if  it  had  been  that  of  the  original  text,  the  missing  phrase  would 
hardly  have  been  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  comparatively  easy  to 
account  for  the  present  text  on  the  supposition  that  the  day  preceded 
the  month  here  as  well  as  in  v.  '.  The  first  word  of  a  Hebrew  book  is 
easily  overlooked.  In  this  case  the  loss  of  nn.xa  would  make  it  neces- 
sary to  change  unnS  to  uhna  to  render  it  intelligible. — rimS]  Add  as  in 
7'  Hg.  I'  "5,  with  "B,  ^':'C^. — 2.  Bu.  attempts  to  save  this  verse  by  re- 
moving it  to  the  next  and  inserting  it  before  lau",  at  the  same  time  chang- 
ing '■'  ixp  to  viBxp;  but  the  result  of  such  an  emendation  would  not  be 
satisfactory;  for  the  troublesome  clause  would  be  almost  as  difficult  to 
construe  with  v.  '  as  in  its  present  position,  while  the  lacuna  at  the  begin- 
ning of  that  verse  would  be  more  apparent  than  it  now  is. — ixp]  Add 
with  Q»  g>,  Snj.  On  the  construction,  cf.  Ges.  ^  "'•  2.  R-  ». — 3.  mcNi] 
The  pf.  of  "ics  with  1  implies  a  preceding  declarative,  like  13t  or  Nnp 
in  the  imv.  The  Heb.  of  the  clause  supplied  in  the  comments,  Sn  Nip 
HTn  Byn  nnsr,  would  just  fill  the  space  now  occupied  by  v.  =.  Blayney 
suggests  (■\:;n'?)  y-\nr\  oy  Sa  Sn  icn,  as  in  7^. — dhSn]  For  ch'Sn,  the 
reading  of  many  mss. — 's  '■>  on:]  Om.  with  (S'*"-  »•  0  05"  S". — dnj]  Not 
a  prtc,  but  a  noun.  Cf.  BDB.  Ace.  to  Ko.  "  5  "«•  ''  the  vocalisation 
(__)  is  due  either  to  a  virtually  doubled  d  or  the  frequency  of  the  word 
in  a  familiar  expression.  The  latter  is  evidently  the  more  reasona- 
ble supposition. — 3ir.si]  Without  n,  ace.  to  Bo.  ^  ^se  g^  on  acct.  of  a  fol- 
lowing guttural.  This  explanation  is  mistaken,  since,  in  all  other  cases 
(6),  the  word  takes  n,  even  before  a  guttural.  Cf.  Ex.  4"  Ho.  2'  Mai.  3'. 
— ncN^]  The  rarity  of  this  word  as  a  substitute  for  cnj  has  already  been 
noted.  Cy.  Hg.  I'.  It  occurs  only  three  times  in  these  chapters,  and  in 
one  at  least  of  them  (7")  it  is  a  part  of  an  interpolation.  It  is  therefore 
possible  that  Kenn.  249,  which  has  3nj,  has  preserved  the  original  read- 
ing. Kenn.  150  has  both,  as  if  it  had  been  corrected. — niNas'^  Om.  (S" 
&".— 4.  Sn]  Rd.,  with  (S  &,  Sni.— DD^S>H'::]  Ace.  to  BDB.,  pi.,  of 
h'h';T2;  ace.  to  Koh.,  Ke.,  Wri.,  irr.  pi.  of  rih^^y.  Qr.  D3''?';'y.D.  So  32 
Kenn.  mss.,  Hi.,  Lowe,  c^  al.  Rd.,  with  21  mss.,  (8  &  51,  D3''S'?3;s!?. 
Cf.  Baer  (Notes,  81),  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.— lycc*  nSi,]  (6^^,  Kal  oix 
tlff-^KOvffav,  which,  since  U'csr  is  represented  in  the  final  clause,  Kal  ov  irpo- 
aiax^v  toO  elffrjKoOcral  fiov,  is  probably  a  duplicate  rendering.  Hence  it  is 
not  strange  that  in  ®aql  j^  should  be  wanting.  Cf.  7"  ((6). — For  o^rpn 
iSn   &i-  has  <^^qZ,  by  mistake  for  >«Ja^.. — ft^   j-g^d    niNax  at  the 


I—  115 

end  of  the  verse. — 6.  In  &,  and  sometimes  in  (g,  both  subjects  are  in- 
cluded in  the  first  question;  so  also,  in  Jerome's  commentary,  in  his 
translations  from  the  Greek  and  the  Heb.  Such  a  division  of  the  verse, 
however,  does  violence,  not  only  to  the  accentuation,  but  to  the  symmetry 
of  the  passage. — D'N^jni]  ^  ,,^jJ^o  =  ■^noji.— 6.  in]  An  adversative, 
cf.  Gn.  20"'  I  S.  29'. — ipm]  d  supplies  ^ix^cOe,  which,  however,  may  be 
a  mistaken  rendering  for  ipni,  taken  for  inpn,  Koi  to.  vbixifj-d  fiov  being  a 
later  correction. — \'T'1X.  (B  adds  iv  irveiiJ.aTi  jxov  =  ^nn^,  after  the  man- 
ner of  ul. — Accent,  not,  with  Gins.,  M^ — naxM,  but,  with  Baer,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense,  u*?  .   .  .    ncN'i. 

2.     A  SERIES  OF  VISIONS,  WITH  THEIR  INTERPRE- 
TATIONS   (1^-6^^). 

There  are  eight  of  these  visions.  Some  of  them  are  described 
very  briefly,  others  with  considerable  detail.  They  are  not  all 
equally  distinct  from  one  another,  but  fall  into  three  groups,  as 
follows:  the  first  three,  depicting  The  return  from  captivity  (i'— 
2x7/13^ ;  the  fourth  and  fifth,  of  which  the  theme  is  The  anointed  of 
Yahweh  (chs.  3/.,  exc.  46ab-ioa^.  ^xiA  the  last  three,  which  may  be 
grouped  imder  the  general  heading.  The  seat  of  wickedness  (5^-6^). 
They  are  supplemented  by  a  section  on  The  prince  of  Judah  (6^"^^ 

a.  The  Return  from  Captivity   (1^-2*^/^^). 

The  visions  of  the  first  group,  three  in  number,  present  successive 
stages  in  the  history  of  the  Restoration  and  prepare  the  way  for  an 
appeal  with  which  the  section  closes.  In  the  first  vision  the  scene 
is  laid  in 

(l)    THE   HOLLOW  OF  THE   MYRTLES    (l''"'0- 

In  this  vision  the  prophet  sees  a  person  to  whom  a  troop  of  di- 
vinely commissioned  messengers  report,  thus  furnishing  an  occa- 
sion for  an  appeal  to  Yahweh  in  behalf  of  his  people  and  a  response 
assuring  them  of  speedy  deliverance. 

7.  To  this  vision  is  prefixed  a  date,  doubtless,  as  is  generally 
admitted,  the  date  of  the  entire  series.  The  prophet  saw  these 
visions  in  the  same  (Jewish)  year  in  which  he  uttered  the  preceding 


Il6  ZECHARIAH 

prophecy,  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  in  the 
eleventh  month,  and,  since  the  day  began  in  the  evening,  the  night 
before  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month,  or  toward  the  middle  of 
February  in  the  year  519  B.C. 

In  this  case  some  one  has  added  the  Babylonian  name,  Shebat,  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  month.  On  the  names  of  the  rest  of  the  months,  cf.  Renzinger, 
Arch.,  200/.,  DB.,  art.  Time.  Six  more  of  these  names  occur  in  this  and  other 
late  books:  Nisan,  the  first  (Ne.  2');  Sivan,  the  third  (Ezr.  8^j;  Elul,  the  sixth 
(Ne.  615);  Kislew,  the  ninth  (Zc.  7');  Tebeth,  the  tenth  (Ezr.  2^^);  and  Adar, 
the  twelfth  (Ezr.  6i5)- 

Koh.  is  disposed  to  think  that  the  appearance  of  these  visions  on  the  twenty- 
fourth  of  the  month  was  a  recognition  by  Yahweh  of  the  devotion  of  his  peo- 
ple in  beginning  work  on  the  temple  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  si.xth,  and 
laying  the  foundation  of  the  new  structure  on  the  same  day  of  the  ninth  month. 
Cf.  Hg.  I '5  2'".  Too  much,  however,  should  not  be  made  of  this  coincidence, 
lest  some  one  should  make  the  point  that  it  stamps  the  chronology  of  the  books 
of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  as  artificial  and  unreliable.  It  should  also  be  re- 
membered that,  as  was  shown  in  the  comments  on  Hg.  2'*,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  the  foundation  of  the  new  temple  was  laid  on  the  twenty-fourth 
of  the  ninth  month. 

Dru.  justly  criticises  Jerome  for  saying  that  the  month  Shebat  was"jw 
acerrimo  tempore  hyemis";  for,  although  in  February  the  rainy  season  is  not 
yet  ended,  the  weather  is  often  very  warm  and  pleasant  and  other  tokens  of 
spring  are  abundant. 

This  date,  in  the  Massoretic  text,  is  immediately  followed  by  the 
introductory  clause  found  in  v.  \  the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  Zech- 
ariah, the  son  of  Berechiah,  the  son  of  Iddo,  saying.  In  this  case, 
however,  it  is  not  enough  to  reca.st  it,  substituting  the  first  for  the 
third  person.  The  result,  to  be  sure,  would  be  a  formula  in  the 
style  of  Zechariah,  but  one  that  would  here  be  as  useless  as  that  for 
which  it  was  substituted;  for  it  also,  if  fairly  and  naturally  inter- 
preted,* would  give  the  reader  the  impression  that  it  was  Yahweh 
who  saw  the  vision  to  be  described,  which  surely  was  not  the 
thought  of  the  original  author.  The  only  remedy  is  in  dropping 
the  disturbing  clause  altogether  and  connecting  v.  *  directly  with 
the  date  of  the  vision,  as  is  done  in  Is.  6'.t — 8.  On  the  given  date 
Zechariah  says  he  saw  certain  things.    The  word  used  J  is  the  one 

*  Cf.  82-  '•  '  ". 

t  If  Neumann  had  done  this,  it  would  not  have  been  necessary  for  him  to  devote  a  long  para- 
graph to  explaining  how  a  vision  can  he  called  "the  word  of  Yahweh." 
t  n.si. 


I^-'^  117 

commonly  employed  to  denote  perception  by  means  of  the  organs 
of  vision,  A  literalist  might  regard  this  fact  as  a  warrant  for  hold- 
ing that  the  things  and  acts  described  presented  themselves  as  ob- 
jects to  the  physical  senses;  but  there  are  features  of  this  vision  that 
are  inconsistent  vi^ith  its  objective  reality,  and,  when  the  attempt  is 
made  to  explain  the  whole  series  as  literal  scenes,  the  inadequacy  of 
that  method  of  interpretation  becomes  increasingly  apparent.  Note 
the  angels  mounted  on  horses  in  this,  and  the  various  symbolic  ob- 
jects or  actions  in  the  other  pictures,  especially  the  fantastic  figure 
of  the  woman  in  the  ephah.  CJ.  5^.  It  is  impossible  also,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Zechariah  says  the  time  was  at  night,  to  main- 
tain that  he  saw  the  things  described  in  his  sleep.  A  sufficient 
reason  for  this  assertion  is  found  in  the  fact  that  he  not  only  does 
not  say,  but  apparently  takes  pains  not  to  say,  that  he  was  dream- 
ing. Even  if  it  were  necessary  to  admit  that  he  intended  to  repre- 
sent his  visions  as  inspired  dreams,  the  ease  with  which  he  passes 
from  the  language  of  the  vision  to  that  of  ordinary  prophetic  dis- 
course would  dispel  the  illusion.*  There  are  considerations,  also, 
that  make  it  improbable  that  these  visions  were  produced  in  an 
ecstatic  condition  by  the  direct  influence  of  the  divine  spirit f  or 
under  the  stimulus  of  an  intense  and  overpowering  conviction. 
There  are  too  many  of  them,  and  they  too  clearly  betray  fore- 
thought and  invention.  They  must,  therefore,  be  classed,  with 
those  of  Am.  7^  ^-  Je.  i"  ^-  and  Ez.  8  ^•,  as  literary  forms  in  which 
the  prophet  clothed  his  ideas,  whatever  their  origin,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  for  them  prompter  attention  among  those  whom 
he  sought  to  instruct  and  influence.  It  is  only  just  to  add  that,  as 
will  appear  in  the  course  of  these  comments,  for  attractiveness  and 
effectiveness  the  visions  of  Zechariah  fall  below  the  average  of 
those  used  by  his  predecessors.  The  first  is  rather  obscure,  but, 
as  the  scene  is  laid  in  the  night,  the  indistinctness  of  the  various 
figures  introduced  seems  natural,  if  not  intentional.  Among  these 
figures  the  first  to  appear  is  a  man.     Who  the  man  is,  Zechariah 

*  Koh.  cites  Ew.  and  Hi.  as  holding  the  view  that  the  prophet  is  reporting  a  succession  of 
dreams.  Hi.  in  his  commentary  is  rather  ambiguous.  Ew.,  although  he  refers  to  the  visions 
as  "  Traumgebilde"  adds  that  they  are  not  really  dreams,  much  as  they  resemble  them,  but  that 
they  were  devised  in  their  order  for  a  deliberate  purpose. 

t  So  Koh.,  Ke.,  Wri.,  Or  ,  ct  al. 


Il8  ZECHARIAH 

does  not  explain,  but  the  reader  at  once  suspects  that  he,  like  the 
man  in  Ez.  8^*  40''^-,  etc.,  is  a  superhuman  being,  and  therefore 
is  not  surprised  to  find  that  in  a  gloss  to  v.  "  he  is  identified  with 
"the  angel  of  Yahweh."  This  view  has  been  questioned,!  but  it 
is  a  natural  inference  from  the  language  used,  and,  as  the  evident 
superiority  of  the  person  whose  identity  is  in  question  over  all  the 
others  mentioned  points  in  the  same  direction,  it  has  been  widely 
accepted. J  On  the  title  "angel  of  Yahweh,"  cf.  Hg.  i*^  and  the 
comments.  In  this  book  it  evidently  denotes  a  visible  manifesta- 
tion of  Yahweh.  He  is  described,  in  a  gloss  which  seems  to  have 
been  added  by  some  one  who  thought  it  beneath  the  dignity  of  the 
angel  of  the  divine  presence  to  be  on  foot  while  his  attendants  were 
on  horseback,  as  mounted  on  a  bay  horse,§  but  in  a  genuine  clause 
as  standing,  or  better,  in  the  present  connection,  waiting,  among 
the  myrtles. 

The  myrtle  {Myrtus  communis)  is  not,  as  one  would  suppose  from  the  Eng- 
lish rendering  of  Is.  55",  a  tree,  but  a  shrub  that  seldom  attains  a  height  of 
more  than  eight  feet.  It  is  an  evergreen,  with  fragrant  leaves  and  delicate 
white  flowers.  It  was  a  favourite  among  the  Hebrews.  Hence  it  is  mentioned 
among  the  trees  that  testify  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Messianic  age.  Cf.  Is. 
41"  55".  From  it,  as  from  the  palm  and  other  trees,  they  cut  branches  to 
make  booths  for  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Cf.  Ne.  S's.  In  Lv.  23«'  the  wil- 
low takes  the  places  of  both  the  myrtle  and  the  olive;  a  fact  which  favours  the 
opinion  that  much  of  the  priestly  legislation  took  its  final  shape  outside  of 
Palestine.  The  myrtle  is  still  common  throughout  Palestine,  growing  wild 
on  the  slopes  of  the  hills  and  along  the  water-courses  (<"/.  Vergil,  Georg.,  ii, 
122;  iv,  124),  as  well  as  in  the  gardens  of  the  inhabitants.  Cf.  DB.,  art. 
Myrtle;  Tristram,  NHP.,  365  f. 

The  myrtles  the  prophet  has  in  mind  are  in  a  locality  especially 
favourable  to  their  growth,  a  hollow.    This  depression  has  been 

*  In  this  passage  the  correct  reading  is  not  "  the  appearance  of  fire  "  (u'n),  hut  "  the  appear- 
ance of  a  man"  (c*i{<).     Cj.  Toy,  SBOT. 

t  Koh.,  Kc,  Kile.,  Wri.,  Now.,  et  al. 

%  So  Ra.,  .'\E.,  Cal.,  Dru.,  Marck,  Lowth,  Bla.,  Ew.,  Hd.,  Pros.,  Or.,  Rcu.,  el  al.  Some  of 
these  at  the  same  time  hold  that  the  man  is  the  son  of  God.  This  doctrine  was  widely  current 
among  the  earlier  commentators,  but  it  did  not  pass  unchallenged.  Theodorct  of  Mopsuestia 
says  in  criticism  of  it,  "  Full  of  error  and  folly,  nay,  little  short  of  impiety,  is  the  teaching  by  some 
that  he  saw  the  son  of  God  ";  and  again,  in  a  passage  that  seems  to  have  hccn  mutilated  by  a 
more  orthodox  reader,  he  declares,  "  None  of  the  prophets  knew  anything  about  the  deity  of  the 
Only  Begotten." 

§  The  word  rendered  bay  (OiN)  is  used  of  various  shades  of  colour  from  pink  to  reddish- 
brown.     Cj.  Ct.  s'"  2  K.  3=  Nu.  19=  Is.  632  Gn.  25=". 


I^-»'  119 

identified  with  the  Valley  of  Kidron,  and  that  part  of  it  about  its 
junction  with  the  Valley  of  Hinnom;  and  there  is  something  to  be 
said  for  this  opinion:  (i)  This  spot  is  the  lowest  near  the  city,  and 
therefore  most  likely  to  be  called  "The  Hollow."  (2)  It  has  al- 
ways been  a  garden,  being  the  site  of  "The  King's  Garden"  of 
2  K.  25^,  and  even  in  Zechariah's  time  the  myrtle  must  have  flour- 
ished there.  (3)  If,  as  some  claim,  the  setting  of  the  last  vision 
(6^*^-)  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  first,  this  circumstance  also  is  sig- 
nificant, for  there  is  no  other  locality  near  Jerusalem  that  would  so 
well  suit  both  cases.  Since,  however,  the  prophet  is  describing, 
not  a  real,  but  an  imaginary  scene,  perhaps  the  most  that  can  be 
said  is  that  the  familiar  scenery  about  the  Kidron  furnished  him 
some  of  the  materials  for  his  picture.  In  this  imaginary  hollow  he 
represents  himself  as  seeing  the  angel  of  Yahweh,  and  not  only 
him,  but  behind  him,  or,  since  the  angel  must  be  conceived  as  fac- 
ing now  one  way  and  then  the  other,  beyond  him,  a  number  of 
horses, — he  does  not  say  how  many, — some  of  which  are  of  a  bay 
colour,  others  chestnut*  and  still  others  white.  The  mention  of 
these  colours  indicates  that  the  horses  were  divided  into  troops. 
That  they  had  riders  is  taken  for  granted.  Who  these  riders  were 
is  explained  in  the  next  verse. — 9.  The  explanation  is  given  in 
answer  to  a  question  by  the  prophet  apparently  addressed  to  the 
person  just  introduced.  There  are  those  who  hold  that  it  is  he 
who  now  makes  answer,  f  and  this  opinion,  besides  being  a  natural 
presupposition,  is  favoured  by  the  seeming  identification  of  the 
two  in  V.  ^*'.  There  are,  however,  serious  objections,  (i)  The 
descriptive  phrase  that  follows  is  superfluous  as  a  means  of  identi- 
fying the  angel  of  Yahweh.  (2)  Nor  does  it  fit  this  person;  for, 
as  he  has  thus  far  not  said  anything,  he  cannot  be  described  as  one 
speaking  with  the  prophet.  On  the  other  hand,  a  description  is 
necessary  for  a  new  character,  and  this  one  suits  an  interpreter, 
especially  if  it  be  rendered  an  angel  that  was  speaking  with  me. 
Indeed,  in  the  form  the  angel,  etc.,  it  is  capable  of  a  similar  inter- 

*  The  derivation  of  the  Heb.  word  pni;',  sarok,  from  pnu*,  shine  hrighlly,  v/ould  indicate 
that  it  denotes  a  bright  reddish  colour;  but  whether,  with  Ges.,  one  should  render  it  as  above, 
or,  with  his  latest  revisers  (BDB.),  sorrel,  it  seems  impossible  to  determine.  The  rendering 
speckled  or  dappled,  in  which  the  \'rss.  agree,  has  no  warrant  in  Iffl. 

t  SoTheod.  Mops.,  Ra.,  Marck,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  et  al. 


120  ZECHARIAH 

pretation,  for,  thus  translated,  it  is  at  the  same  time  a  description 
of  a  second  person  and  an  allusion  to  the  familiar  figure  of  the  in- 
terpreter in  the  visions  of  Ezekiel.  CJ.  8'-^-  40^^-,  etc.  It  is 
therefore  fair  to  conclude  that  the  angel  here  meant  is  as  distinct 
from  the  one  of  the  preceding  verse  as  he  is  from  the  second  to  ap- 
pear in  2^'^,  and  that  he  has  a  different  function.  He  immediately 
declares  his  office.  /  imll  show  thee,  he  says,  what  these  are.  He 
is  here,  as  elsevi^here  in  these  visions,*  a  monitor  and  interpreter 
to  prevent  the  prophet  from  missing  anything  that  he  should  see 
or  failing  to  understand  its  meaning. — 10.  It  is  not  he,  however, 
who  actually  gives  the  promised  information.  The  reply  comes 
from  the  man  that  was  standing  among  the  myrtles.  Here,  at  first 
sight,  seems  to  be  a  discrepancy  indicating  either  that  the  idea  of 
distinguishing  two  angels  is  mistaken,  or,  perhaps,  that  this  verse  is 
wholly  (We.)  or  in  part  an  interpolation.  Neither  of  these  infer- 
ences is  necessary,  as  will  appear,  if  due  regard  be  paid  to  the  fol- 
lowing considerations:  (i)  The  promise  to  show  what  the  vision 
means  does  not  require  that  the  interpreter  should  do  so  by  a 
direct  and  personal  demonstration.  (2)  It  is  clear  from  the  other 
visions  that  the  prophet  intended  to  make  them  as  far  as  possible 
explain  themselves.  (3)  A  notable  instance  of  the  indirect  method 
is  found  in  the  third,  where  the  interpreter,  instead  of  addressing 
the  prophet,  as  he  would  have  been  expected  to  do,  shows  what  he 
wishes  the  prophet  to  know  by  a  message  sent  to  a  third  person. 
In  view  of  this  example  it  ought  not  to  seem  strange  for  the  prophet 
to  put  the  answer  to  his  own  question  into  the  mouth  of  the  princi- 
pal figure  in  the  scene  described.  These,  he  says, — referring,  not 
to  the  horses  of  various  colours,  but,  as  appears  from  v.",  to  their 
riders, — these  are  they  that  Yahweh  sent  to  traverse  the  earth.  Here 
are  two  or  three  points  that  deserve  attention.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  noteworthy  that  the  angel  of  Yahweh,  the  speaker,  here  as  in 
v.  "  and  3^  distinguishes  between  himself  as  a  divine  manifesta- 
tion to  his  people  and  Yahweh  the  God  of  the  whole  earth.  Ob- 
serve, too,  that  the  messengers  were  apparently  all  desj^atched  to- 
gether, and  that  at  the  time  to  which  the  vision  refers  they  have 
accomplished  their  mission.     It  is  therefore  clearly  useless  to  seek 

♦  Cj.   2-/t'»  '/"•  4'-  *•  '•   S'-  '"  6<-  6. 


.7-17 


121 


for  the  key  to  the  vision  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  or  try,  as  some  have 
done,  to  find  in  the  colours  of  the  horses  symbols  of  any  succession 
of  events,*  or  empires.f  Finally,  it  is  significant  that  these  horse- 
men, unlike  those  described  in  the  Apocalypse  (6) ,  all  had  one  and 
the  same  mission.  This  fact  forbids  the  interpretation  of  the  col- 
ours of  the  horses  as  intended,  to  use  the  language  of  Newcome, 
"to  intimate  the  difference  of  their  ministries."!  Their  mission 
was  not  to  slay,  burn  and  conquer,  as  Kohler  explains,  but,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  next  verse,  to  reconnoitre  the  earth§  and  report  on 
its  condition.  Now,  a  mission  of  this  sort  can  evidently  be  exe- 
cuted quite  as  well  and  much  more  expeditiously  by  a  given  num- 
ber of  persons  if  they  are  divided  into  detachments  and  sent  in 
different  directions.  It  is  therefore  probable,  especially  in  view 
of  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  other  interpretations,  that  the  prophet 
thought  of  these  scouts  as  operating  in  this  way  and  gave  the  horses 
different  colours  to  distinguish  the  detachments  from  one  another. 
He  made  the  number  three,  if  this  is  the  original  reading,  perhaps 
because  the  sea  to  the  west  restricted  his  vision  in  that  direction. 
See,  however,  6*  ^•. 

11.  The  horsemen  do  not  wait  for  a  direct  command,  but,  on 
being  introduced,  make  their  report  to  the  last  speaker,  who  is 
again  described  as  the  one  who  was  standing  among  the  myrtles. 
They  say,  perhaps  through  a  spokesman.  We  have  traversed  the 
earth,  and  lo,  the  whole  earth — more  exactly  the  population  of  the 
various  countries  of  the  earth — resteth  in  quiet.  This  statement  at 
first  sight  seems  intended  to  describe  the  state  of  things  at  the  date 
of  the  vision,**  but  this  can  hardly  be  the  correct  interpretation. 
It  is  not  probable  that  the  adversaries  of  Darius  were  all  subdued, 
and  the  Persian  empire  reduced  to  a  state  of  complete  tranquillity, 
by  the  month  of  February,  519  B.C.;  or  that,  if  the  struggle  for  the 
throne  was  still  in  progress,  the  Jews,  including  Zechariah,  were 
so  ill  informed  with  reference  to  matters  in  the  East  that  they  sup- 

*  For  example,  the  varied  fortunes  of  the  Persian  empire;  Grot.,  Hd.,  et  al. 
t  The  Jews  of  Jerome's  time  saw  in  these  colours  symbols  of  the  Assyrian,  Babylonian  and 
Medo-Persian,  or  the  Medo-Persian,  Macedonian  and  Roman  empires.     SoCyr.,  Klie.,  el  ai. 
t  So  Bla.,  Koh.  Ke.,  et  al. 
§  Not,  as  Luther  and  others  render  it,  ihe  land. 
**  So  Dru.,  Grot.,  Marck,  Lowth,  Hd.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  et  al. 


122  ZECHARIAH 

posed  it  had  been  decided.  There  are  equally  valid  objections 
to  the  view  that  the  prophet  is  here  describing  future  conditions. 
The  Jews  in  his  day  were  not  groaning  in  bondage  and  looking  for 
deliverance  from  it,  as  such  an  interpretation  would  imply,  but 
their  fetters  had  been  broken  by  Cyrus  and  they  had  since  been 
free  to  return  to  their  country  and  labour  for  its  economic,  if  not 
for  its  political  restoration.  This  is  perfectly  clear  from  the  proph- 
ecies of  Haggai;  also  from  the  last  chapters  of  this  collection,  es- 
pecially 6*  ^•.  A  reference  to  the  present  and  the  future  being  im- 
probable, there  remains  no  alternative  but,  with  van  Hoonacker, 
to  regard  the  vision  as  a  picture  of  the  past.  The  use  of  visions  as 
a  means  of  representing  historical  facts  or  truths  is  not  without 
precedent  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  is  a  notable  example  in 
the  book  of  Amos.  The  seventh  chapter  of  that  book  begins  with 
a  series  of  three  visions  one  object  of  which  was  effectively  to  por- 
tray to  the  sinning  children  of  Israel  the  long-suffering  of  Yahweh  in 
his  dealings  with  them.  If,  therefore,  Zechariah  is  here  attempt- 
ing to  depict  a  historical  situation,  he  is  simply  following  the  ex- 
ample of  one  of  the  greatest  of  his  predecessors  in  the  prophetic 
office.  That  this  really  is  his  object  appears  from  a  comparison 
of  the  language  he  uses  here  and  in  the  following  verses  with  that 
of  the  Second  Isaiah.*  The  impression  thus  produced  is  only 
deepened  when  the  next  two  visions  are  taken  into  account,  for 
2io/6ff.  jiQt  only  suits  the  Babylonian  period,  but  cannot  well  be 
understood  as  referring  to  any  other.  For  details,  see  below. 
There  is  one  objection  to  the  view  proposed,  namely,  that  accord- 
ing to  V.  *-  the  angel  of  Yahweh  refers  to  the  indignation  of  Yah- 
weh as  having  endured  seventy  years;  but  see  below.  The  only 
way  to  avoid  the  adoption  of  some  such  explanation  as  is  there  sug- 
gested is  to  reject  the  date  given  in  v.  '  and  refer  this  and  the  fol- 
lowing chapter  to  the  period  of  the  Exile;  but  such  a  course  is  for- 
bidden by  the  organic  relation  between  these  chapters  and  the  next 
four  and  the  evidence  that  these  last  were  written  after  the  acces- 
sion of  Darius  Hystaspes.  On  the  whole,  then,  it  seems  best  to 
interpret  this  first  vision  as  a  picture  of  the  past,  that  is,  of  the 
j)enod  of  the  Exile.     There  was  a  time  previous  to  the  appearance 

*  Cp.  V.  "  and  Is.  14';  v.  "  and  Is.  40";  v.  "  and  Is.  42'';  v.  '"  and  Is.  44-'  51'. 


I'-  123 

of  Cyrus  as  a  conqueror  when  Babylon  was  apparently  so  power- 
ful that  it  could  fitly  be  called  "mistress  of  kingdoms"  (Is.  47^), 
and  its  dominion  so  generally  recognised  that  the  Jews  could  be 
represented  as  meeting  the  promises  of  their  prophets  with  the 
sceptical  questions,  "Is  the  spoil  taken  from  the  mighty?  or  the  cap- 
tive of  the  terrible  delivered  ?  "  and  it  is  probably  this  period  that 
Zechariah  had  in  mind  when  he  put  into  the  mouths  of  the  re- 
turned horsemen  the  report  that,  wherever  they  went,  they  found 
undisturbed  quiet. — 12.  There  are  various  places  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  the  condition  just  described  is  plainly  repre- 
sented as  desirable.  Thus,  when,  in  3"  and  elsewhere  in  the  book 
of  Judges,  the  land  is  said  to  have  "had  rest"  so  or  so  many  years, 
it  means  that  a  more  or  less  serious  conflict  had  been  brought  to  a 
more  or  less  satisfactory  issue  and  the  Hebrews  permitted  an  inter- 
val of  peace.  Cf.  also  Is.  14'.  In  this  case  the  result  was  not  fa- 
vovuable  to  them,  but  disastrous;  and  the  peace  that  followed  was 
the  prize  of  their  enemies.  The  Jews  themselves,  to  be  sure,  had 
a  kind  of  rest,  but  it  was  the  rest  of  a  pygmy  in  the  hands  of  a  giant. 
They  could  not  be  satisfied  with  it,  however  clearly  they  might 
come  to  see  that  they  themselves  were  to  blame  for  their  helpless 
condition.  Indeed,  the  more  keenly  they  realised  their  culpa- 
bility, the  more  eagerly  they  longed,  and  the  more  earnestly  they 
prayed,  for  the  future  favour  of  Yahweh.  All  this  finds  expression 
in  the  pathetic  appeal,  how  long  wilt  thou  not  have  compassion,  or, 
to  put  it  more  idiomatically,  how  long  wilt  thou  refuse  to  have  com- 
passion, on  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah?  The  words  might 
well  have  come  from  the  prophet.  His  curiosity  led  him  in  v.  ® 
to  ask  about  the  horsemen  and  their  significance.  It  would  also 
have  been  natural  for  him,  on  hearing  the  report  that  there  were  as 
yet  no  signs  of  the  interference  of  Yahweh  in  behalf  of  his  afflicted 
people,  to  inquire  how  much  longer  they  must  wait  for  deliverance. 
Or,  the  interpreter  might  have  acted  as  his  spokesman.  There 
are  those  who  maintain  that  it  must  have  been  he  who  made  the 
appeal,  and  that,  therefore,  either  he  is  identical  with  the  angel  of 
Yahweh,*  or  the  angel  of  Yahweh  has  been  substituted  for  him,f 
because  he  is  the  one  to  whom  the  answer  is  addressed.    Cf.  v.  ^^. 

*  So  Theod.  Mops..  Ra.,  Marck,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  el  al.  t  So  Marti,  Kit. 


124  ZECHARIAH 

There  arc,  however,  good  grounds  for  rejecting  any  such  conclu- 
sion. In  the  first  place,  although,  it  must  be  confessed,  Zechariah 
does  not  always  express  himself  as  clearly  as  one  might  desire, 
he  seems  to  have  intended  to  represent  the  angel  who  spoke  with 
him  as  a  mere  interpreter.  One  would  therefore  hardly  expect 
him  to  address  Yahweh.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  reasons  why 
the  angel  of  Yahweh  should  be  the  next  speaker,  (i)  It  was  he  to 
whom  the  report  of  the  horsemen  was  made.  (2)  A  more  convinc- 
ing argument  is  found  in  the  character  of  this  angel  as  the  prophet 
seems  to  have  conceived  him.  He  appears  again,  and  very  dis- 
tinctly, in  the  fourth  vision,  where  he  rebukes  Satan  and  rescues 
Joshua  and  his  people  from  serious  danger;  in  other  words,  he 
acts  the  part  of  a  champion  and  defender  of  the  Jewish  people. 
In  the  book  of  Daniel  this  office  is  performed  by  the  archangel 
Michael,  whom  another  angel  calls  "the  great  prince  who  standeth 
for  the  children  of  thy  people."  CJ.  Dn.  12'.  It  must  not,  how- 
ever, on  this  account  be  supposed  that  the  archangel  is  intended.* 
The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  Zechariah  seems  to  have  adopted 
a  conception  of  the  angel  of  Yahweh  which  prepared  the  way  for 
the  later  doctrine  according  to  which  each  people  had  its  guardian 
angel.  This,  however,  is  enough  to  warrant  one  in  believing  that 
Zechariah  gave  to  the  angel  of  Yahweh  the  place  he  now  occupies 
in  this  first  vision.  The  angel  of  Yahweh,  then,  is  the  spokesman 
of  Zechariah  and  his  people,  voicing  their  plea  for  mercy  on  the 
land  that  Yahweh  has  cursed  with  ruin  and  desolation  now  seventy 
years.  The  number  seventy,  as  already  noted,  seems  to  contra- 
dict the  suggestion  that  this  vision  relates  to  the  past,  being  con- 
siderably too  large  for  the  period  from  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  to  any 
date  before  the  close  of  the  Exile,  an  interval  of  only  586-538  = 
48  years.  This  objection,  however,  can  be  answered  by  supposing 
either  that,  since  the  prophet  evidently  had  in  mind  the  passage 
from  Jeremiah  in  which  the  Exile  and  its  duration  are  predicted 
(25*^-),  he  reckoned  from  605  B.C.,  the  date  of  that  prophecy, 
or  that,  starting  from  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  he  inadvertendy 
included  the  nineteen  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  capture  of 
Babylon  and  the  end  of  the  Exile.     In  either  case  the  result  would 

♦  So  Thcodoret,  li  Lap.,  Grot.,  el  al. 


I'-  125 

be  near  enough  to  warrant  him  in  using  the  round  number  sev- 
enty.*    CJ.  f. 

13.  The  appeal  is  answered,  and,  as  it  seems,  by  Yahweh  in 
person,  for  the  prophet  can  hardly  have  meant  to  represent  the 
last  speaker  as  acting  two  parts  in  so  close  connection. -j-  How, 
then,  is  he  to  be  understood?  Does  he  mean  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  at  this  point  the  Deity  made  himself  more  directly 
manifest  than  through  the  angel  who  had  thus  far  represented  him, 
thus  adding  another  to  the  number  of  supernal  beings  present? 
Probably  not.  A  more  satisfactory  explanation  is  found  by  com- 
paring this  vision  with  the  eighth,  where  Yahweh  seems  to  be  pres- 
ent, but  unseen,  namely,  in  the  palace  before  which  the  chariots 
are  mustered.  Thence  he  gives  his  agents  the  command  to  depart, 
and  thence  he  addresses  the  interpreter.  Cf.  6*.  It  is  easy  to 
imagine  that  in  the  present  instance  he  speaks  from  the  darkness 
round  about  him  to  the  interpreter,  and  through  him  to  the  prophet, 
the  cheerful,  comforting  words  that  follow.  Cf.  Is.  40^ — 14.  They 
are  given  in  the  form  in  which  the  interpreter  reported  them  to  the 
prophet,  commanding  him  to  deliver  them  to  his  people.  I  am 
very  jealous.  Jealousy  implies  special  interest  on  the  part  of  one  I 
person  for  another.  It  often  presupposes  a  bond  between  the 
parties  that  gives  each  of  them  a  claim  upon  the  other.  The  He- 
brews represented  Yahweh  as  having  a  peculiar  interest  in  them ;{ 
as  having,  in  fact,  entered  into  a  covenant  with  them  by  virtue  of 
which  he  became,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  their  God  and  they  his 
chosen  people. §  They  therefore  felt  that  they  owed  him  exclusive 
allegiance  and  that,  in  return,  they  might  claim  his  special  pro- 
tection. Sometimes,  however,  a  sense  of  their  unworthiness  in- 
clined them  to  renounce  this  claim  and  throw  themselves  upon  his 
mercy.     Hosea  goes  almost  too  far  in   this  direction.     Cf.  8", 

*  For  some  of  the  earlier  attempts  to  explain  the  number  seventy,  see  Bla.  and  New.  Koh. 
and  others  reckon  from  the  third  of  Jehoiakim,  when,  according  to  Dn.  ii  ' •,  Nebuchadrezzar 
took  Jerusalem  the  first  time;  but  the  passage  on  which  their  opinion  is  based  is  generally 
discredited. 

t  This  is  Stonard's  idea.  He  says:  "Those  comfortable  words  certainly  did  not  proceed  from 
the  interpreting  angel,  for  to  him  they  were  addressed;  nor  from  any  of  the  company  of  horse- 
men, for  they  were  only  the  messengers  sent  by  Jehovah;  still  less  can  they  be  imagined  to  have 
come  from  Zechariah  himself;  and  since  no  other  person  but  the  angel  intercessor  is  described 
to  be  present,  they  must  have  proceeded  from  him.     But  he  is  no  other  than  Jehovah  himself." 

t  Cj.  Am.  32  Ho.  Ill  s.  Dt.  437  f.  ^es.^  etc.  §  Ex.  3410  '■  Dt.  zgif/'ff-  Je.  ^■^,  etc. 


126  ZECHARIAH 

etc.  In  V. '-  the  appeal  is  not  for  justice,  but  mercy.  Here,  there- 
fore, the  jealousy  of  God  must  be  regarded,  not  as  a  hostile  af- 
fection,* but  as  something  in  him  analogous  to  the  feeling  en- 
kindled in  human  beings  for  sufferers  and  against  those  who  afflict 
them.  The  object  of  his  ardour  on  its  tender  side  is  Jerusalem, 
even  Sion.  The  name  Sion  was  first,  without  doubt,  applied  to 
the  comparatively  low  hill,  pierced  by  the  Siloam  tunnel,  on  which 
the  ancient  city  had  its  beginning,  f  The  application  of  it  was 
afterward  extended  over  the  whole  of  the  ridge  of  which  this  hill 
is  a  part,  including  the  site  of  the  temple  (Jo.  2*,  etc.),  and  finally 
over  the  larger  city  covering  other  eminences  to  the  west  and  the 
north.  Cf.  Is.  52^  ^-y  etc.  In  v.  "  and  elsewherej  Zechariah 
seems  to  use  it  as  a  synonym  for  Jerusalem.  It  is  therefore  prob- 
able that  it  should  here  be  interpreted  as  meaning  the  city  rather 
than  the  sacred  mountain,  and  that  in  the  ruined  and  desolate 
condition  in  which  it  was  left  by  the  Babylonians.  Cf.  Is.  44^* 
54",  etc. — 15.  The  other  side  of  Yahweh's  jealousy  reveals  itself 
to  the  oppressors  of  his  people.  But  I  am  very  wroth,  he  contin- 
ues, against  the  careless,  or  arrogant,  nations.  They  are  the  same 
that  are  described  in  v.  "  as  resting  undisturbed,  enjoying  the 
fruits  of  conquest.  The  strength  by  which  they  won  their  success 
has  given  them  a  reckless  confidence  that  shows  itself  in  boasting. 
This  spirit  is  the  one  that  Isaiah  condemned  in  the  Assyrians. 
Cf.  10^^  ^•.  Zechariah  is  thinking  of  the  Babylonians  as  por- 
trayed in  Is.  47^*'.  Their  arrogance  would  in  itself  be  offensive 
to  Yahweh;  but  the  immediate  cause  of  his  anger  is  that,  when  he 
was  only  a  little  wroth  with  his  people,  and  therefore  disposed  to 
punish  them  but  lightly,  these  nations,  being  employed  for  the  pur- 
pose, helped,  hut  for  harm.  The  idea  is  a  familiar  one.  Thus, 
Isaiah  (10" ')  rebukes  the  Assyrian  for  planning  to  exterminate 
those  whom  he  was  commissioned  only  to  chastise,  while  the 
prophet  of  the  Exile  accuses  the  Babylonians  of  treating  the  Jews 
with  such  cruelty  that  in  the  end  they  paid  double  the  divinely 
prescribed  penalty.  Cf.  47®  40^.  Zechariah  is  here  but  repeating 
this  accusation. § 

*  So  New.,  Bla.,  et  al.  t  2  S.  s'  i  K.  8''  <,  etc.  X  2""-  """  8'  '•. 

§  There  are  several  c.xegetes  who  see  a  discrepancy  between  this  passage  in  its  most  obvious 
meaning  and  v.  ',  to  avoid  which  they  interpret  "a  little  "  as  a  limitation  of  the  duration  rather 


I^-^^  127 

16.  Therefore  introduces  the  divine  purpose  based  on  the  facts 
above  given.  Because  he  has  a  special  regard  for  Jerusalem,  and 
it  has  already  received  from  his  hand  double  for  all  its  sins,  he 
will  return  to  the  city,  the  place  of  his  former  abode.  The  Sec- 
ond Isaiah  describes  the  return  of  Yahweh  as  a  triumphal  proces- 
sion, for  which  a  highway  is  to  be  made  through  the  desert,  and 
at  which  all  the  world  will  wonder.*  It  would  have  been  folly 
for  Zechariah  in  his  vision  to  copy  this  glowing  prediction;  for 
those  for  whose  instruction  and  encouragement  he  wrote  knew 
that  it  had  not  been  fulfilled. f  They  felt,  however,  that  Cyrus  was 
as  really  an  instrument  of  the  divine  will  as  Nebuchadrezzar,  and 
they  were  prepared  to  believe  that  Yahweh  had  at  last  relented, 
so  that  he  would  henceforth  reveal  himself  among  them  in  com- 
passion. Indeed,  the  prophet  could,  and  did,  go  further.  Haggai 
had  accomplished  his  mission,  and  the  foundation  of  the  temple 
had  been  laid.  It  did  not,  therefore,  require  great  faith  to  believe 
that  this  structure  would  be  completed  and  the  city  restored;  in 
other  words,  that  the  prediction  of  Is.  44"^  would  be  fulfilled.  The 
prophet,  at  any  rate,  believed  it,  and,  in  testimony  of  his  confidence, 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the  remaining  words  of  this  verse: 
My  house  shall  be  built  therein,  and  a  line,  the  line  used  as  a 
measure  by  builders,  shall  be  stretched  over  Jerusalem.  Cf.  2^^^  ^■. 
Note  that  the  emphasis  is  here  on  the  material  blessings  resulting 
from  the  presence  of  Yahweh.  In  8^  it  is  on  the  spiritual. — VJ . 
Here  was  an  excellent  opportunity  for  extravagant  language  such 
as  even  Haggai  (2^)  could  not  altogether  repress.  Zechariah,  how- 
ever, as  V.  ^^  has  shown,  was  more  temperate  than  his  contempo- 
rary. He  therefore  omits  any  prediction  with  reference  to  the 
future  splendour  of  the  new  sanctuary.  The  most  he  permits  him- 
self, if  the  text  is  correct,  is  a  general  prophecy  of  prosperity.  The 
cities, — in  v.  ^^  "the  cities  of  Judah, " — he  makes  Yahweh  sa.y, shall 
again  overflow  with  good,  the  temporal  blessings  which  all  men 

than  the  severity  of  the  divine  wrath.  So  Ki.,  Grot.,  Marck,  Lowth,  Ston.,  Pres.,  Wri.,  et  al. 
If,  however,  as  has  been  shown,  v.  2  is  an  interpolation,  there  is  no  need  of  resorting  to  such 
violence. 

*  Cj.  Is.  40'  *■  43'°,  etc. 

t  They  knew,  too,  that  the  overthrow  of  the  Babylonian  empire  was  not  so  spectacular  an 
event  as  had  been  expected,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  one  (GASm.)  does  not  find  it  predicted 
in  this  passage. 


128  ZECHARIAH 

crave  and  which  God  bestows  upon  those  who  please  him.  This 
general  promise  is  followed  by  another  for  the  capital  in  particu- 
lar: Yahweh  will  yet,  in  answer  to  the  petition  implied  in  v.  ^^, 
have  compassion  on*  Sion,  and  again,  as  in  the  days  of  its  pros- 
perity, take  pleasure  in  Jerusalem.^ 

Here  ends  the  first  vision.  It  is  a  picture  of  the  past.  At  first  it 
was  not  clear  what  Zechariah  meant  by  it;  but  in  the  course  of  the 
above  discussion  his  purpose  has  become  more  apparent.  The 
Jews  had  been  raised  to  the  highest  pitch  of  expectation  by  the 
prophecies  of  the  Second  Isaiah.  The  results,  to  them,  of  the 
triumph  of  Cyrus  had  fallen  so  far  short  of  their  hopes  that  they 
were  grievously  disappointed.  Some  of  them  must  have  well- 
nigh  lost  their  faith  in  the  God  of  their  fathers.  It  was  therefore 
time  for  some  one  who  was  sane,  sober  and  practical  to  put  the 
whole  matter  in  a  less  tragical  aspect,  showing  his  people  that 
Yahweh  had  after  all  really  intervened  in  their  behalf,  and  en- 
couraging them  to  expect  his  continued  assistance.  This  seems  to 
have  been  Zechariah's  object  in  his  first  vision.  The  practical 
effect  of  the  saner  view,  as  he  doubtless  foresaw,  would  naturally 
be  an  increase  of  interest  and  energy  in  the  enterprise  which  he, 
as  well  as  Haggai,  probably  regarded  as  the  first  duty  of  the 
restored  community,  the  rebuilding  of  the  national  sanctuary. 
Cf.  v.  '\ 

7.  iry  'nu';']  The  later  idiom  for  ">ry  ipn,  which  occurs  only  in  Gn. 
32"  379  Dt.  i=;  cp.  Dt.  I'. — E33U' — Nin]  The  reasons  for  regarding  this 
clause  as  an  interpolation  are:  (i)  that  neither  Haggai  nor  Zechariah,  in 
V.  ',  adds  the  name  to  the  number  of  the  month;  and  (2)  that  the  practice 
of  so  doing  seems  to  belong  to  a  much  later  date,  being  confined,  except 
in  one  instance  that  requires  special  consideration,  to  Est.  Cf.  7'. — t<n;] 
For  n>',  V. ';  like  ni3-<,  Ez.  2^*,  for  ia"<,  i  Ch.  29',  and  n'Pj,  Jo.  4",  for  'PJ, 
E.x.  23^,  etc.;  Ew.  ^  '^c. — 8.  o^N — aD">]  First  suspected  by  Ew.,  it  is 
omitted  by  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  The  objections  to  its  genuineness 
are:  (i)  that  the  predicates  as"!  and  ^Ci'  are  hardly  compatible  with  each 
other;  (2)  that  the  introduction  of  this  clause  produces  the  impression 
that  the  angel  of  Yahweh  is  the  leader  of  the  celestial  scouts,  and  not,  as 
in  V.  ",  the  one  to  whom  they  report;  (3)  that  there  is  no  use  made  of  it  in 
the  subsequent  narrative;  and  (4)  that,  if  the  clause  were  genuine,  N111, 

*  The  te,Tt  has  comjort,  but  sec  the  critical  notes. 

t  C/.  2'*i2  3'  Is.  14'.     On  the  rcqdering  take  pleasure,  sec  especially  Is.  56'  58^  '•  65'-  66', 


I'-^'  129 

which  the  later  critics  without  warrant  omit,  would  precede  it,  the  sec- 
ond prtc.  being  introduced  by  the  simple  v — D^Dinn]  (^^^,  rwv  bpiwv  = 
onnn;  (gAQ  and  some  curss.,  rQ)v  5i5o  opiuv  =  onnn  *ju'.  The  former 
reading  is  adopted  by  Theod.  Mops.,  Theodoret,  Che.,  Marti,  van  H., 
et  al.  It  is  easier,  however,  to  explain  these  readings  by  6'  than  it 
is  to  account  for  that  of  the  text  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  corrupt. — 
nSxD3]  So  Houb.,  Norzi,  Baer,  Gins.;  for  nSixD3.  Other  readings  are: 
nSxca,  Flirst,  nSxDDjBo.,  and  nSxca,  Ew.,  BDB.,  all  with  the  general  sense 
of  in  the  shadow.  Cf.  ($,  KaraffKluv;  &,  .  *  W^  Vi>.  The  rendering  in 
the  hoUowis  evidently  preferable  if  the  correctness  of  D''D"inn  is  maintained. 
— r-iRN]  Marti  suggests  vjisS;  but  that  would  naturally  mean  that  the 
horsemen  were  between  the  angel  and  the  prophet,  which  can  hardly  be 
what  the  latter  intended. — O'pir]  ^^^bq  have  Kal  <papol  /cai  ttoikLXoi,  a 
reading  which,  at  first  sight,  favours  the  view  that  M  originally  had 
horses  of  four  colours;  but  the  similarity  of  the  two  here  named,  and  the 
omission  of  the  former  by  (&'<<'■  '',  some  curss.,  S",  make  it  probable  that 
this  one  is  a  gloss  to  the  other.  If,  therefore,  05  has  preserved  a  fourth 
colour  in  ttolkIXoi  =  ama,  it  has  lost  the  one  represented  by  D^piir.  For 
the  latter  Marti  rds.  onnu',  thus  bringing  this  passage  into  accord  with 
6-  f-.  It  does  not,  however,  seem  necessary  that  the  two  passages  should 
so  perfecdy  agree,  or  natural  that,  if  Zechariah  wrote  onnr,  this  com- 
paratively familiar  word  should  have  given  place  to  the  d.  X.  of  the  pres- 
ent text.  Asada,  following  06  &,  reads  cpit'i;  but  the  1  need  not  be 
supplied  imless  omai  is  added.  Cf.  Ges.  5  U2.  1.  R.  s, — 9.  13 — icnm]  d 
>^  i.Lc]o  >rff  ^  SnV)  Vslbtf  p^o  =  ''Vn  icnm  o  nann  isSon  jp'i, 
and  this  reading  seems  favoured  by  w. »»";  but  v.  "  has  the  precise  for- 
mula here  used. — InSdh]  The  art.  is  properly  used  whether  the  thought  be 
that  the  angel  is  one  to  whom  attention  is  called  for  the  first  time  or  one 
with  whom  and  his  function  the  reader  is  supposed  to  be  familiar.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^  «»•  ■«.— o]  Not  in  me,  with  (B  H,  Jer.,  Theod.  Mops.,  Marck,  Pu., 
et  al.,  but,  as  in  Nu.  I2«- «  Hb.  2',  where  the  most  intimate  communion  be- 
tween God  and  man  is  described,  with  me;  the  prep,  denoting,  not  instru- 
mentality, Ew.  k2u  i.  i^  but  proximity.  Cf.  BDB.  «'  ».— ncn]  The  pron. 
is  not,  as  Ges.  Hn . » implies,  and  Wright  expressly  asserts,  a  substitute  for 
the  copula,  but,  as  Dr.  puts  it,  "an  imperfect  anticipation  of  the  subject," 
which  here  has  the  force  of  an  appositive.  Cf.  Dr.  k  -"^  (2);  Ko.  5  ^»  <5.  In 
a  direct  question  n':'^  might  come  first.  Cf.  Is.  492'. — 10.  jyi]  This 
verb  naturally  introduces  a  speech  by  one  who  has  been  direcdy  ad- 
dressed, but,  since  it  may  also  introduce  a  speech  by  any  one  interested  in 
a  given  subject  {cf.  v.  "  Gn.  23"'  Ju.  i8>s  etc.),  its  use  here  proves  noth- 
ing with  reference  to  the  question  whether  the  man  among  the  myrdes 
and  the  interpreter  are  the  same  or  different  persons.  We.,  who  regards 
them  as  distinct,  finds  in  the  fact  that  the  former  answers  a  question  put 
to  the  latter  a  reason  for  suspecting  the  genuineness  of  theAvhole  verse; 


130  ZECHARIAH 

but  such  "interference"  is  a  common  occurrence  to  an  oriental. — 
O'Dinn]  ^j  rS)v  dpiuv,  as  in  v.  ', 

11.  nvT>  in'?c]  The  person  to  whom  the  horsemen  report  is  no  doubt 
the  angel  of  Yahweh,  but,  if  he  had  been  so  called  in  the  original  text,  the 
descriptive  clause  that  was  standijig  among  the  myrtles  would  hardly  have 
been  added.  We.  is  therefore  probably  correct  in  the  surmise  that  the 
original  reading  was  B'''Nn  here  as  in  v.  '».  So  also  Marti,  Kit.  Now., 
on  the  other  hand,  following  Hi.,  omits  the  descriptive  clause. — V"in2] 
(gNABo^  iraaav  tt]v  yrjv;  but  (6^  om.  iraffav,  which,  moreover,  is  easily  ex- 
plained as  a  loan  from  the  next  clause. — napvi]  A  pred.  adj.  with  the 
force  of  an  adverbial  phrase,  like  niSe'i  in  7'. — 12.  mn^  l^'^c]  A  reason 
for  retaining  this  reading  additional  to  those  given  in  the  comments  is 
that  the  insertion  of  the  same  words  in  v.  "  is  more  easily  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  the  angel  of  Yahweh  was  expressly  named  in  this  verse. 
— npN]  The  separate  pron.  here  seems  to  be  used  rather  for  rhythmi- 
cal effect  than  for  emphasis.  Cf.  Ges.  %  ''s.  1. — nncyt]  For  ncyr,  C/. 
Ges.  1 44.  s-  R-  3.— nt]  Not  a  pron.,  as  $  H,  Lu.,  EV,  render  it,  but  an 
adv.  Cf.  Ges.  §  ise.  R.  3  (*)._13.  nin^]  (^nabq  ^^^  wavroKpiTup,  which, 
however,  Comp.,  (&^"-,  Chrys.  omit. — o  "»3in]  Ace.  to  Now.  an  in- 
terpolation; but,  since  it  is  the  interpreter  who  delivers  the  message,  it 
would  seem  most  natural  that  he  should  receive  it. — onai*]  (^  &  prefix  a 
connective. — ccnj]  An  abstr.  pi.  used  appositively  for  gen.  Cf.  Ges. 
§j  m.  I  (*);  131.  2  («);  Dr.  §  '»»  <".— 14.  irxSi  oSc'itS]  In  (S^  the  names 
are  transposed. — nSnj  nNjp]  Cf.  w.  2.  is;  Ges.  5  i'^-  ""), — 15.  Vnj  r\-i^-\] 
Cf.  v.  ». — D'oiNC'ri]  Houb.rds.n'tSNcn,  That  despise  it  (Jerusalem).    To 

ntjj  he  would  give  the  force  of  Ar.   »yfc  iv.,  multiply. — iu'n]  Here  a 
conj.    Cf.  Ges.  \  ^'\ 

16.  ninM]  Kenn.  195  adds  niN3x.  So  (&^  &,  and,  since  it  occurs  in 
17  out  of  19  similar  cases,  this  may  well  be  the  correct  reading. — na]  On 
the  daghesh,  cf.  Ges.  5  =".  2  «2)  is).  mp]  So  also  i  K.  7"  Je.  3139/39; 
but  always  Qr.  ip. — 17.  n^y]  (6  transfers  this  word  to  the  preceding 
verse  and  puts  into  its  place  Kal  elnev  irpbs  fti  6  dyyeXos  \i\uv  iv  ifjal. 
— njxiBp]  For  rly•i^Dr,  the  reading  of  24  Kenn.  mss.  Cf.  Ges.  i  «•  s-  k. 
Houb.  rds.  njx-«cn. — aiOD  'ij.']  Rd.,  with  <6  &,  3io  Dnyn  or,  as  in  v.  '*, 
31150  niin>  <-\j:. — zmi]  Rd.,  with  ft  (Kal  iXei^aei)  onni,  as  in  v.  «.  So 
Oort.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  &  has  )j,AJe  =  rnj3\  which,  however, 
Sebok  is  probably  correct  in  regarding  as  an  error  for  ^.^AJe  =  onji, 

(2)  THE  HORNS  AND  THEIR  DESTROYERS  (2*"^/l'*"^*). 

The  second  vision  attaches  itself  naturally  and  closely  to  the  first. 
In  it  the  prophet  sees  four  horns,  and,  when  their  significance  has 
been  explained,  as  many  workmen  commissioned  to  destroy  them; 


the  whole  being  a  picture  of  the  process  by  which  Yahweh  intends 
to  fulfil  the  promise  of  the  first  vision. 

2'/!"*.  There  is  no  date.  None  is  needed.  The  relation  of 
this  vision  to  the  first  is  such  that  the  date  of  the  one  must  be  the 
date  of  the  other,  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  eleventh  month  of  the 
second  year  of  the  Persian  king  Darius.  Then,  says  the  prophet, 
meaning  after  the  first  vision  had  passed,  /  lifted  tip  my  eyes.  Here, 
as  in  the  former  case,  the  language  is  figurative,  since  the  vision  is 
only  a  literary  form  for  the  thought  that  the  prophet  wishes  to  con- 
vey. This  time  there  appear,  first, /(?«;•  horns.  There  is  nothing 
to  indicate  the  manner  of  their  appearance,  whether  as  attached  or 
separate  members,  but  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  animals  or 
their  movements  favours  the  latter  alternative.*  They  at  once  re- 
call the  horns,  great  and  small,  of  the  book  of  Daniel;  but,  since 
that  book  is  without  doubt  a  product  of  the  Maccabean  period,  as 
between  the  two  its  author,  and  not  Zechariah,  must  be  regarded  as 
the  imitator.  The  origin  of  the  symbol  common  to  them  is  easily 
traced.  To  the  Hebrews  the  ox,  like  the  lion,  typified  strength 
(Ps.  22'^^*^),  and  its  horns  were  the  feature  that  they  emphasised. 
Cf.  Dt.  23".  Hence  it  was  natural  that  Amos  (6'^)  should  repre- 
sent Israel  as  boasting  of  having  taken  to  themselves  horns,  and 
that  Zedekiah,  the  son  of  Chenaanah,  should  wear  a  pair  in  the 
tableau  by  which  he  pictured  the  triumph  of  the  allied  forces  of 
Israel  and  Judah  over  the  Syrians.  Cf.  i  K.  22".  This,  however, 
seems  to  be  the  earliest  instance  in  which  the  horn  is  used  to  sym- 
bolise, not  power,  but,  as  will  appear,  a  power,  that  is,  a  powerful 
nation.  Therein,  perhaps,  lies  the  reason  why  Zechariah  is  so 
careful  to  explain  the  figure. 

2'/l^^.  The  method  of  question  and  answer  is  continued.  The 
prophet  inquires  of  his  angelic  interpreter.  Sir,  what  are  these?  re- 
ferring to  the  horns.  The  angel  replies.  These  are  the  horns  that 
scattered  Judah.  These  words  have  been  variously  interpreted. 
Not  that  there  is  any  difference  of  opinion  concerning  their  general 
import.     It  is  agreed  that  the  Targum  is  correct  in  interpreting 

*  The  contrary  is  maintained  by  J.  D.  Mich.  {Lex.  Heb.),  who  thinks  the  prophet  saw  a  pair 
of  oxen  in  grass  so  tall  that  their  horns  only  were  visible.  Ston.  insists  that  there  must  have  been 
four  animals,  "  bearing  each  a  single  horn,  high  and  pointed,  like  that  of  the  he-goat  in  Daniel." 
Similarly  Pres.,  Pu.,  Wri.,  Per.,  et  al. 


132  ZECHARIAH 

horns  as  meaning  kingdoms,  that,  in  other  words,  these  hems  repre- 
sent political  powers.  The  disagreement  arises  when  an  attempt  is 
made  to  identify  the  powers.  Now,  it  is  clear  that,  since  the  horns 
are  described  as  those  that  produced  a  dispersion,  the  first  thing 
to  do  is  to  fix  the  date  and  circumstances  of  this  event,  or  series  of 
events.  The  text  seems  to  furnish  the  necessary  data.  It  says 
that  these  horns  scattered,  not  only  Judah,  but  Israel.  But  Israel, 
when  used  in  conjunction  with  Judah,  regularly  denotes  the  north- 
em,  in  distinction  from  the  southern,  kingdom  and  it  is  regularly 
so  used  even  by  the  later  prophets.*  If,  therefore,  as  one  has  a 
right  to  expect,  it  is  used  in  that  sense  in  this  connection,  the  dis- 
persion to  which  the  prophet  refers  must  include  that  of  the  north- 
em  as  well  as  the  southern  tribes;  in  other  words,  one  must  reckon 
Assyria  as  well  as  Babylonia  among  the  powers  involved.f  This 
is  the  natural  inference  from  the  text  as  it  reads,  but  such  an  in- 
ference does  not  harmonise  with  the  impression  derived  from  the 
preceding  chapter.  The  dispersion  to  which  allusion  is  there  made 
is  the  dispersion  of  Judah  only,  the  result  of  the  capture  of  Jeru- 
salem by  Nebuchadrezzar.  This  fact  excites  doubt  concerning  the 
genuineness  of  Israel  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  and  the 
doubt  thus  excited  is  confirmed  by  v.  *,  where  the  horns  are  again 
introduced,  but  the  name  Israel  is  omitted.  It  follows  that  here, 
also,  the  prophet  had  the  Judean  dispersion  in  mind,  and  that  he 
used  the  horns  to  represent  the  power  or  powers  instrumental  in 
that  catastrophe. J  Rashi  recognises  only  one  power,  "the  Baby- 
lonians at  the  four  winds  of  heaven  ";§  and  his  view  is  not  without 
a  semblance  of  support  in  the  wide  extent  of  the  Babylonian  em- 
pire under  Nebuchadrezzar,  by  virtue  of  which  he,  like  the  kings 
before  and  after  him,  called  himself  "king  of  the  four  quarters."** 
Still,  it  must  be  rejected,  because  the  Babylonians,  though  the 
strongest,  were  not  the  only  people  that  helped  the  Jews  to  their 

♦  a.  Je.  3«-  "•  '•  s"  Ez.  99  27".  etc. 

t  So  Jer..  Cyr.  Ki.  Dru..  Klie..  Ston..  Pros.,  Pu.,  Wri.,  tt  al. 

X  The  adoption  of  this  emendation  is  greatly  to  be  desired.  It  will  prevent  any  further  vio- 
lence to  the  troublesome  name,  which  has  been  interpreted,  not  only  as  an  honorary  title,  Ke., 
but  as  a  collective  title  for  rural  as  distinguished  from  urban.  Or.,  common  as  compared  with 
noble,  Neumann  and  even  faithless,  as  contrasted  with  faithful  Jews,  Klie. 

5  So  van  Hoonacker. 

♦♦  KB.,  iii,  I,  108  /.;  2,  gd  /. 


destruction,*  as  the  use  of  the  plural  in  v.  *  clearly  indicates.  There 
is  equally  good  ground  for  rejecting  any  interpretation  which  makes 
the  horns  represent  four  distinct  powers  including  Babylonia.  The 
reply  is  that,  as  the  Jews  had  more  than  four  adversaries,  but  no 
others  of  the  same  class  with  the  Babylonians,  it  is  impossible  to 
identify  the  other  three,  and  that,  this  being  the  case,  the  vision 
becomes  meaningless.  The  impossibility  of  finding  a  power  or 
powers  that  the  prophet  can  safely  be  supposed  to  have  had  in  mind 
makes  it  necessary  to  give  to  the  horns  a  broader  interpretation. 
Theodoret  of  Mopsuestia  does  so.  He  says  that  they  designate 
"those  who  from  many  sides  attacked  "  God's  people,  "and  sought 
in  every  way  to  injure  them,"  the  number  four  being  chosen,  be- 
cause the  Hebrews,  like  others,  divided  the  world  into  four  quar- 
ters and  naturally  represented  anything  coming  from  all  directions 
as  coming  from  the  cardinal  points.  Cf.  "the  four  winds  of 
heaven,"  6^.f  This  seems  to  have  been  nearly  the  thought  of  the 
prophet;  but  in  developing  it  care  must  be  taken  to  avoid  the  mis- 
take of  including,  as  many  have  done,  the  enemies  of  both  king- 
doms, or  those  of  the  Jews  after  the  Babylonian  period,  for  these 
horns  symbolise  the  power  only  of  the  peoples,  especially  the  Baby- 
lonians, who  by  their  hostility  contributed  to  the  final  overthrow 
of  the  Jewish  state  and  the  banishment  of  the  Jewish  people  from 
their  soil. 

^/V^,  The  vision  is  not  yet  complete.  Yahweh,  says  the 
prophet,  imitating  the  phraseology  of  Amos  in  the  first  four  of  his 
visions  (i^-  *•  '8'),  showed  me  four  workmen.  Not  that,  at  this 
point,  Yahweh  called  his  attention  to  something  that  he  had  not  be- 
fore noticed.  The  figures  were  now  first  brought  upon  the  scene. 
They  were  figures  of  men  of  skill  and  strength,  fitted,  therefore, 
for  any  task,  able  to  build,  but  no  less,  to  use  the  words  of  Ez. 
2j36/3i^  "skilful  to  destroy."  On  the  number  of  the  workmen,  see 
below. — 2^/1"^  The  prophet  seems  to  have  conceived  of  the  work- 
men as  having  something  distinctive,  either  in  the  dress  they  wore 
or  the  implements  they  carried,  which  made  them  at  once  recog- 

*  Cj.  Je.  12"  Ez.  253-  8  282<  355,  etc. 

t  Similarly,  Lu.,  Cal.,  Ribera,  Marck,  New.,  Rosenm.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Hd.,  Burger,  Per.,  We., 
Now.,  Marti,  el  al. 


134  ZECHARIAH 

nisable.  At  any  rate,  he  does  not  ask  who  they  are,  but  only.  What 
are  Ihese  coming  to  do?  The  reply,  doubtless  from  the  interj)reter, 
first  repeats  the  explanation  just  given,  Those  are  the  horns  that 
scattered  Judah;  adding  a  clause  descriptive  of  the  thoroughness 
M^ith  which  the  hostile  forces  did  their  destructive  work,  so  that  he, 
meaning  Judah,  did  not,  because  he  could  not,  uplift  his  head.  The 
condition  thus  described  is  the  condition  of  the  Jews  during  the 
Exile,  when  they  dared  not  believe  that  they  could  be  taken  from 
their  mighty  conquerors.  Cf.  Is.  49  ^'^  ^^  For  a  similar  figure,  see 
Am.  5^.  Turning  now  to  the  workmen,  the  interpreter  explains, 
These  are  come  to  cast  down.  Here  again  it  is  easy  to  mistake  the 
prophet's  meaning.  Just  as  the  prominence  of  the  Babylonians 
in  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  seems  to  mark  them  as  the  power 
symbolised  by  the  horns,  or  one  of  them,  so  their  overthrow  by 
the  Persians  seems  to  require  that  these  latter  be  regarded  as  the 
power,  or  one  of  four  such  powers,  represented  by  the  work- 
men. In  this  case,  however,  as  in  the  preceding,  the  first  impres- 
sion is  erroneous.  Indeed,  it  will  be  found,  not  only  that  the  work- 
men do  not  represent  Persia  alone  or  with  any  number  of  other 
powers,  but  that  they  have  a  clearly  different  function.  The  only 
satisfactory  explanation  for  them  is  suggested  by  i^^  ^-j  and  more 
clearly  indicated  in  6''^-.  In  the  latter  passage  there  is  evident 
reference  to  the  conquest  of  Babylonia.  In  alluding  to  it,  how- 
ever, Yahweh  ignores  human  instrumentalities.  It  is  his  angelic 
agents  who  have  appeased  his  spirit  in  that  region.  Now,  since 
the  passage  under  consideration  appears  to  be  a  forecast  of  the 
event  described  as  accomplished  in  the  vision  of  the  chariots,  it  is 
fair  to  conclude  that  here  also  the  prophet,  like  Ezekiel  in  his  de- 
scription of  Gog  and  his  followers,  is  employing  the  apocalyptic 
method,  and  that  therefore  these  workmen,  as  Jerome  perceived, 
represent  the  supernatural  means  through  which  Yahweh  ac- 
comi)lishes  his  purposes.*  They  are  four  in  number  to  indicate 
that  the  penalty  for  the  injury  done  Judah  will  be  as  comprehen- 
sive as  the  offence  was  general.  They  will  cast  downjf  the  horns, 
utterly  destroy  the  power,  of  all  the  nations  that  uplifted  themselves, 

*  Similarly,  Theod.  Mops.,  Cyr.,  Thcodorct,  Lu.,  Cal.,  Dru.,  &  Lap.,  Koh.,  GASm.,  et  al. 
t  Elsewhere  horns  arc  "cut  o£f."    C/.  Je.  48*  Ps.  75"  La.  2'. 


2i-yj.8-2i  ^^^ 

used  violence,  against  the  land  of  Judah,  to  scatter  it,  or,  more 
strictly  speaking,  its  inhabitants. 

The  lameness  of  the  prophet's  language  is  even  more  notice- 
able in  this  than  in  the  preceding  vision.  The  reason  is  the  same 
in  this  case  as  in  the  other.  He  is  dealing  with  comparatively  re- 
cent history,  especially  the  conquest  of  Babylonia,  an  event  which, 
although  it  had  great  significance  for  the  Jews,  was  anything  but 
spectacular.  The  capital,  so  far  from  resisting  the  Persian  con- 
queror, yielded  without  a  blow.  In  fact,  when  Cyrus  entered  the 
city,  it  greeted  him  as  its  deliverer.  It  would  have  been  worse 
than  useless  for  the  prophet,  in  this  vision,  to  enlarge  upon  the 
simple  fact  that  the  conqueror  of  Judah  had  been  punished.  Hav- 
ing presented  this  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  he  passes  to  the  third 
and  final  phase  of  his  present  subject. 

2'/!' 8.  In  05  B  &^^,  as  in  English,  this  verse  and  the  three  that  follow 
are  reckoned  to  ch.  i. — nini]  Here  and  in  v.  ^  5'  for  nsnxi,  which  is 
found  5'  6';  here  also  ace.  to  4  Kenn.  mss.  Cf.  Ges.  §^"-  ^  '*)=  "•  «■  ^• 
<').— 2.  n*?}*  nc]  Add,  with  (S  #,  'jnx,  as  in  i'  4*  6*. — Snic''  rt<]  The 
most  convincing  reasons  for  pronouncing  this  name  an  interpolation,  (i) 
that  it  does  not  fit  the  context,  and  (2)  that  it  is  wanting  in  v.  ■■,  have  al- 
ready been  stated.  Note  in  addition,  (3)  that  it  is  not  found  elsewhere  in 
the  book  except  in  8'^,  where  it  is  as  much  out  of  place  as  in  this  passage. 
— D'?U'nn]  Om.,  with  Kenn.  180,  (&^^  #".  The  omission  of  tn,  also,  is 
against  it.  Both  names  are  disregarded  by  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 3. 
OT->n]  According  to  Mich,  and  others  to  be  pointed  z^Z'^h  and  rendered 
plowmen;  but  such  a  rendering  requires  too  much  explanation  in  v.  *. — 
4.  iCNi]  Some  mss.  have  -\i:Ni. — nvJ'i'S]  (S'-  adds  Kvpie  =  -jin,  as  in 
i«  4^  6^— icnS]  Rd.,  with  Kenn.  178,  (6^Q  *,  ^Sn.— dSn^]  Acc.  to  We.  a 
scribal  error.  Without  it  the  words  that  follow  would  read,  The  horns 
that  scattered  Judah,  so  that  he  did  not  uplift  his  head,  them  to  terrify  came 
these,  etc.  This  rendering,  however,  is  not  satisfactory,  (i)  The  con- 
struction 1.V2M  requires  that  a  complete  sentence  precede  it;  and  (2)  the 
phrase  anN  T-in-i'^,  on  which  this  emendation  is  based,  as  will  be  shown, 
is  itself  an  interpolation.  The  pron.,  therefore,  must  remain  if  the  words 
following  are  recognised  as  genuine.  Marti  omits  them  as  far  as  'U'ni, 
also  n^N2,  at  the  same  time  substituting  a^Ni  for  hom,  and,  at  first  sight, 
he  seems  justifiable  in  so  doing;  but  there  are  contrary  considerations. 
The  clause,  These  are  the  horns  that  scattered  Judah,  is  not  a  mere  repe- 
tition of  the  angel's  first  answer.  The  addition  of  the  next  transforms  it 
from  a  statement  of  fact  into  an  explanation  and  a  Justification  of  the 


136  ZECHARIAH 

workmen's  purpose.  The  latter  clause,  however,  should  be  emended  by 
inserting  ^rx  before  r^s",  with  Koh.  and  others,  or,  with  We.,  substituting 
the  former  for  the  latter.  CJ.  Mai.  2 '.  If  the  former  method  be  adopted, 
NC'j  might  be  pointed  as  a  prtc.  B's  per  singulos  viros.  Et  nemo  .  .  . 
appears  to  be  a  case  of  free  expansion.  (5  takes  greater  liberty  with  the 
te.xt,  adding  the  irreconcilable  gloss,  Kal  rhv  'lapaijX  Karia^av. — inom] 
(gNB  jer.  h^ve  Kal  i^riXdoffav]  but  <B^'i,  Kal  dffrfKdov. — DPN  innn'^]  (g, 
6^vvaL;  whence  Bla.  conjectures  that  the  original  reading  in  i®  was 
DrN.  Ti^nnS,  sharpening  their  coulter.  Gunkel  {Schopfung  u.  Chaos, 
122)  suggests  onN  -^^^'7.  The  coulter,  however,  does  not  seem  the  suit- 
able instrument  for  the  purpose  of  casting  down  the  horns.     Nor  is  it 

probable  that  nnnnS  is  a  mistake  for  nnnnS  (^iJy^,  Houb.),  annnS 

(Seeker)  or  3''-\nn'?  (Marti).  A  verb  with  any  such  meaning  would  come 
more  naturally  after  than  before  nniS.  The  same  is  true  of  the  one 
found  in  the  text,  and  this  is  one  reason  for  suspecting  the  genuineness  of 
the  whole  clause.  Another  is  the  use  of  the  masc.  for  the  fem.  suf.  in 
BrN.  Cf.  Ex.  27- Ps.  75"/'".  Finally,  note  the  absence  of  1  before  miiS. 
The  clause  can  best  be  explained  as  a  gloss  to  dmjh  mj-\p  ra  nn'S,  the 
antecedent  of  the  sf.  of  pn  being  OMjn.  Perhaps,  however,  the  vb.  was 
originally  nininS. — pp]  The  word  sounds  strange  with  nc'j,  the  regular 
idiom  having  onn.  Rd.,  therefore,  D''NU-'jn,  that  uplifted  themselves, 
and  omit  this  word.— Sn]  Rd.,  with  C6  B  0  01,  S;'. 

(3)    THE   MAN   WITH  THE   MEASURING   LINE    (2^''''^^^). 

In  this  his  third  vision  the  prophet  sees  a  man  on  his  way  to 
measure  the  site  of  Jerusalem,  to  whom  he  afterward  hears  the 
interpreter  send  a  message  foretelling  the  limitless  growth  and 
prosperity  of  the  city  under  the  protection  of  Yahweh. 

5/1.  There  has  been  some  difference  of  opinion  with  reference 
to  the  identity  of  the  man  with  a  7neasuring  line.  Thus,  Rashi, 
Maurer  and  others  think  he  is  the  same  with  the  interpreter,  ig- 
noring the  obvious  fact  that  the  prophet  does  not  introduce  the 
latter  until  the  former  has  answered  his  question.  It  is  also  a  mis- 
take to  identify  him  with  the  angel  of  Yahweh  as  Jerome,  Keil 
and  others  have  done.  The  angel  of  Yahweh,  although  he,  also, 
in  i^  is  called  a  man,  always  takes  the  leading  part  in  any  scene  in 
which  he  appears.  CJ.  i"  3*  ^•.  This  is  a  subordinate  figure,  like 
the  horsemen  of  the  first  vision,  whose  part  it  is  to  furnish  an  oc- 
casion for  the  promise  that  is  to  follow. — 6/2.  A  line  like  that 


,5/1-9/5 


137 


which  the  man  is  represented  as  carrying  had  various  uses  among 
the  Hebrews.  When  employed  as  a  symbol,  therefore,  it  might 
have  one  or  another  of  several  different  meanings.  In  the  first 
vision  (i**'),  to  be  sure,  when  Yahweh  said,  "A  line  shall  be 
stretched  over  Jerusalem,"  the  words  were  a  promise  that  the  city 
should  be  rebuilt ;  but  no  Jew  could  forget  that  Amos  had  used  the 
same  figure  of  the  partition  of  Samaria  among  foreigners,  and  the 
author  of  2  K.  21'^  of  the  destruction  of  the  Judean  capital.  The 
fact  that  the  symbol  was  thus  ambiguous,  perhaps,  is  one  of  the 
reasons  why  the  prophet  pictures  himself  as  asking  the  man, 
Whither  art  thou  going  ?  Another  is  his  fondness  for  the  interrog- 
ative style.  The  answer  is  not  precisely  the  one  that  i^^  would  lead 
the  reader  to  expect;  for,  instead  of  repeating  the  promise  of  that 
passage,  the  man  says  he  is  going  to  measure  Jerusalem,  to  see  how 
wide  it  is,  or  is  to  be,  and  how  long.  Nor  is  it  at  once  apparent  what 
he  means  by  these  words.  Marti  sees  in  them  an  expression  of 
"impatient  curiosity"  concerning  the  dimensions  of  the  future 
city.  There  is,  however,  little  ground  for  asserting  the  existence 
of  any  such  sentiment  in  Zechariah's  time.  A  better  interpreta- 
tion is  suggested  by  v.  *.  In  view  of  the  prediction  there  made  it 
seems  best  to  regard  the  man  with  the  measuring  line  as  represent- 
ing the  narrower  and  more  cautious  Jews,  who,  in  spite  of  the 
preaching  of  Haggai,  formed  an  influential  practical  party.  They 
were  patriotic  in  a  way.  They  wished  to  see  Jerusalem  restored. 
They  were  perhaps  doing  what  they  could  to  rebuild  it.  But  they 
insisted  upon  caring  first  for  the  material  needs  of  the  community, 
and  planning  in  this  or  any  other  direction  only  so  far  as  tangible 
resources  would  warrant.  They  were  the  people  who,  when  Haggai 
began  his  agitation,  said  that  the  time  had  not  come  to  build  the 
house  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Hg.  i^.  They  doubtless  thought  it  much 
more  important  that  the  city  should  have  a  wall  than  a  temple, — • 
but  they  would  not  have  approved  of  a  wall  of  unnecessary  dimen- 
sions. They  might  have  been  called  "the  party  of  the  measuring 
line." — 7/3.  At  this  point  the  interpreter  is  again  introduced, 
according  to  the  Greek  Version,  as  standing  near  the  prophet. 
At  the  same  time  another  angel  is  described  as  coming  toward 
him,  namely,  the  interpreter.     This  is  not  the  angel  of  Yahweh, 


138  ZECHARIAH 

the  man  among  the  myrtles  of  the  first  vision; — he  would  hardly  be 
called  "another  angel"  or  assigned  to  an  inferior  position; — but 
apparently  a  third  whose  only  function  is  to  act  as  messenger  for 
the  interpreter. — 8/4.  The  second  of  the  points  just  made  takes 
for  granted  that  the  speaker  in  this  verse  is  the  interpreter,  and  the 
angel  his  messenger.  This  has  frequently  been  denied.*  The 
question  hinges  to  some  extent  on  the  further  inquiry  with  refer- 
ence to  the  person  in  the  command,  Run,  speak  to  yonder  youth. 
Many  have  taken  this  youth  for  Zechariah  himself,f  and  drawn  im- 
portant conclusions  from  the  term  by  which  they  supposed  him  to 
be  designated.  The  more  defensible  opinion,  however,  is  that  he 
should  be  identified  with  the  man  with  the  measuring  line;  for  the 
term  fits  him,  employed  as  he  was,  better  than  the  prophet,  and 
the  message,  though  intended  for  the  prophet,  would  naturally  be 
addressed  to  the  one  who  was  making  the  useless  measurements. 
The  bearing  of  this  result  on  the  main  question  is  evident.  If  the 
youth  is  the  man  with  the  measuring  line,  it  must  be  the  interpreter 
who  sent  him  the  message,  and  not  the  other  angel,  who  would  have 
had  to  take  the  interpreter  from  the  prophet's  side  for  the  purpose. 
Finally,  it  should  be  observed  that  the  contrary  ojnnion  makes  the 
interpreter  dependent  on  the  other  angel  for  the  very  knowledge 
which  his  office  implies.  It  is  the  interpreter,  then,  who  sends,  and 
the  other  angel  who  carries,  the  message.  J  It  is  a  rebuke  of  the 
selfish  and  faithless  opportunism  that  the  youth  represented,  and  a 
protest  against  permitting  "the  day  of  small  things"  to  determine 
the  future  of  Jerusalem.  Zechariah, — for,  of  course,  it  is  he  who 
is  speaking  through  the  interpreter, — although,  as  has  been  shown, 
he  could  not  ignore  facts,  had  imagination.  He  shows  it  here  by 
refusing  to  set  a  limit  to  the  growth  of  the  city,  predicting  that  it 
will  burst  all  boimds,  e.xtend  itself  indefinitely,  and  lie  open  like 
the  villages  of  the  country  on  account  of  the  multitude  0/  men  and 
cattle  in  it.  Cf.  Je.  49^*  Ez.  38". — 9/4.  The  prophet  did  not,  in 
the  preceding  verse,  give  the  ground  of  his  confidence.  It  now  ap- 
pears that  he  based  his  prediction  concerning  the  future  of  the  city 

♦  So  Jer.,  Theod.  Mops.,  Dru.,  Pern.,  New.,  Bla.,  Ston.,  Ew.,  Ke.,  Pu.,  Reu.,  van  H.,  et  al. 
t  So  Jer.,  AE.,  Cal.,  Rib.,  Dru.,  &  Lap.,  Pern.,  Bla.,  Lowth,  Rcscnm.,  Kc,  Koh.,  Pres.,  Pu., 
«tal. 

X  So  Marck,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Klie.,  Or.,  Wri.,  Per.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  et  al. 


on  the  promised  presence  of  Yahweh.  The  temple  was  already 
in  building.  When  it  was  completed,  and  the  service  therein  re- 
sumed, he  saw  that  Jerusalem  would  no  longer  be  merely  a  little 
mountain  town,  the  refuge  of  a  few  struggling  Jews,  but  would  in- 
evitably become  the  religious  shrine  and  capital  of  a  race;  and  he 
expected  that  the  God  of  their  fathers  would  again  reveal  himseK 
to  them  there.  Cf.  vv.  ""^^  8^.  Then,  as  truly  as  in  the  days  of  the 
Exodus,  he  would  be  a  wall  of  fire^  round  about,  a  sure  defence, 
if  any  were  needed,  against  their  adversaries.  Cf.  v.  ^^''"  8'^  ^• 
Is.  26^  The  prophet  also  makes  Yahweh  promise  to  be  a  splen- 
dour in  the  city.  Haggai  had  seen  a  similar  vision  (2''),  but  the 
splendour  he  saw  was  that  of  gifts  of  silver  and  gold  brought  to 
the  new  temple.  That  seen  by  Zechariah  is  the  splendour  of  the 
divine  presence  symbolised  by  the  fiery  cloud  which  Ezekiel  saw 
enter  the  sanctuary  (43*  ^•),  but  more  gloriously  manifested  in  the 
reign  of  truth  and  holiness  among  the  fortunate  inhabitants  of 
the  future  city.     Cf.  8^ 

In  the  foregoing  comments  it  has  been  taken  for  granted  that, 
while,  in  the  first  two  visions,  Zechariah  was  dealing  with  the  past, 
in  this  third  he  was  attempting  to  forecast  the  futiure.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  text  to  contradict  this  supposition.  It  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  the  prophecy  here  made,  unlike  those  that  have  pre- 
ceded it,  does  not  harmonise  with  conditions  either  before  or  after 
the  time  of  the  prophet.  The  city  did  not  prosper  as  he  expected, 
and  Nehemiah,  after  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century,  was  moved 
to  rebuild  the  wall,  as  the  only  means  of  preserving  the  inhabitants 
from  dispersion  or  annihilation.  The  three  visions  thus  far  ex- 
amined, therefore,  form  a  series  the  object  of  which  was,  by  a  re- 
view of  the  past,  to  prepare  the  reader  for  increased  faith  in  God 
for  the  future.  It  was  evidently  constructed  in  imitation  of  that 
in  Am.  7.  For  later  parallels,  see  the  visions  of  chs.  7/.  of  Daniel, 
and  the  interpretation  of  ch.  11  of  the  same  book. 

5/1.  Here  begins  ch.  2,  ace.  to  <&  B,  also  ace.  to  l|  in  the  great  poly- 
glots.— NiNi]  2  Kenn.  mss.  rd.  hnini.  Cf.  v.  '. — 6/2.  icni]  Add,  with 
<&  &,  v^N. — njnx  .   .   .   n3n->]  &  reverses  the  order. — 7/3.  nx^']  We., 

*  Ex.  14-°  should  read,  "When  it  became  dark,  it,"  the  pillar  of  fire  between  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Egyptians,  "lighted  the  night."     Cj.  We.,  Uex.\  Baentsch,  Ex. 


]  40  ZECHARIAH 

following  ^  (IffTi^Kei),  rds.  iDj?.  So  also  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  Better, 
with  Asada,  ax:.— 8/4.  iSn]  Rd.  vVn.  Cf.  Ges.  M«-  *•  R-  «.  4  Kenn. 
mss.  rd.  ^^n.  (6'^bQ''  add  \^yuv.—ihn]  For  niSn.  Cf.  Ges.§  «■  2-  R-  ■. 
— nv-^D]  Adverbial  ace.  =  nirica.  C/".  Ges.  §  "«-5  (O;  Dr.  §'•'  ").  <g, 
xara/cdpirwj,  as  if  from  ^^-^s,  fruitful.  Cf.  Ez.  ip'o. — 9/5.  'jni]  Em- 
phatic.    C/".  Ges.  >!  '"•  '. 


(4)    .\N   APPEAL  TO  THE   EXILES    (2''*^''"'^/*^). 

The  rest  of  the  chapter  has  usually  been  treated  as  a  part  of  the 
preceding  vision,  but  this  arrangement  must  be  abandoned.  The 
reasons  are  as  follows:  (i)  The  speaker  is  not  the  same  as  in  v.  ^, 
but  the  prophet  now  takes  the  place  of  the  interpreter.  This  ap- 
pears from  his  references  to  himself  in  vv.  "  ^- ;  also  from  the  fact, 
itself  another  reason  for  making  these  verses  a  separate  para- 
graph, that  (2)  the  persons  addressed  are  no  longer  any  of  those 
who  have  appeared  in  the  visions,  but  the  Jews  who  still  remain  in 
Babylonia.  Finally,  (3)  these  verses  are  not  an  enlargement  upon 
the  third  vision,  but  an  appeal  based  upon  the  whole  trio,  in  which 
the  prophet  exhorts  his  people  to  separate  themselves  from  the 
nations  destined  to  perish  and  return  to  Palestine,  there  to  enjoy  in 
a  restored  community  the  presence  and  protection  of  Yahweh. 

10/6.  The  prophet  does  not  at  first  designate  by  any  name  those 
whom  he  is  addressing.  He  simply  exhorts  them  to  flee  from  the 
north  country;  but  it  is  only  necessary  to  turn  to  v.  "  to  find  that  the 
north  country  is  Babylonia  and  those  who  are  exhorted  to  flee 
thence  exiled  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.  This  summons  does  not, 
as  Kosters*  claims,  imply  that  previous  to  this  time  no  Jews  had 
returned  from  Babylonia.  The  prophet  would  hardly  have  pre- 
sented the  past  as  he  has  in  the  preceding  visions  if  the  promises 
there  made  had  not  to  some  extent  been  fulfilled.  It  means  merely 
that,  although,  as  6^°  clearly  shows,  some  of  those  who  had  been 
carried  into  captivity,  or  their  descendants,  had  returned,  their 
number  was  comparatively  small,  and  that  those  who  had  the  in- 
terests of  the  new  community  at  heart  felt  the  need  of  further  re- 
inforcements from  the  same  direction,  especially  in  the  work  of 
rebuilding  the  national  sanctuary.    The  exhortation,  as  already  in- 

♦  Die  Wiederherstdlung  Israels,  jo. 


210/6-17/13  j^j 

timated,  is  repeated  in  v.  ",  but  these  two  members  of  a  parallelism 
are  separated  by  a  parenthetical  clause  which  seems  to  have  been 
intended  to  explain  the  presence  of  the  Jews  in  Babylonia.  One 
rendering  for  it  is,  for  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven  have  I  dispersed 
you. — 11/7.  Now  follows  the  second  member  of  the  parallelism. 
This  time,  however,  as  in  Is.  51*^,  the  Jews,  although  they  are  in 
Exile,  are  addressed  under  the  familiar  name  Sion, — perhaps  orig- 
inally daughter  of  Sion,  which  occurs  Is.  52^  and  La.  4^'  in  the  same 
sense.  That  the  exiles,  and  not,  as  one  might  at  first  sight  think, 
the  actual  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  are  meant,  is  clear  from  the 
added  phrase  dwellers  in  Babylon.  The  language  used  was  calcu- 
lated to  remind  them  of  their  birthright. 

12/8.  The  speaker  next  proceeds,  as  if  about  to  give  a  reason  for 
the  summons  he  has  issued,  but  interrupts  himself,  or  is  interrupted, 
by  a  parenthetical  statement  that  has  never  been  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained. It  reads,  literally,  after  glory  he  sent  me.  The  subject  is 
evidently  Yahweh.  The  object,  who  is  undoubtedly  the  same  as 
in  w.  ^^'^  and  ^^'",  must  be  the  prophet.  There  is  great  difficulty 
with  the  phrase  after  glory.  The  English  words  would  naturally 
be  taken  to  denote  the  purpose  of  the  speaker's  mission,  namely, 
to  obtain  for  himself  or  another  glory  in  the  sense  of  renown.  It 
does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  any  one  to  take  the  word  in  an- 
other meaning  frequent  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  of  splendour, 
which,  when  it  refers  to  the  Deity,  becomes  synonymous  with  the 
manifestation  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Ez.  3^.  If  this  sense  be  given  to 
it  in  the  present  instance,  the  troublesome  clause  will  become  a 
simple  statement,  apparently  by  the  prophet,  that  Yahweh  gave 
him  the  message  he  is  delivering  after  the  vision,  or  series  of  visions, 
previously  described.  It  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  re- 
semblance between  the  experience  of  Zechariah  and  that  of  Eze- 
kiel  as  recorded  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  his  book.  In  fact,  the 
words  here  used  were  evidently  borrowed  from  that  book.  In  i^* 
Ezekiel  describes  the  theophany  he  has  just  witnessed  as  having 
the  appearance  of  a  rainbow.  "This,"  says  he,  "was  the  appear- 
ance of  the  likeness  of  the  glory  of  Yahweh."  Then  he  proceeds 
(2^  ^•)  to  tell  how,  after  this  vision,  the  Spirit  set  him  upon  his  feet 
and  Yahweh  said  to  him,  "Son  of  man,  I  send  thee,"  etc.,  which 


142  ZECHARIAH 

he  might  have  condensed,  and  Zechariah  did  condense,  into  the 
brief  statement.  After  the  glory  (vision)  he  sent  me.*  The  next  fol- 
lowing words  must  now  be  construed  with  the  verb  preceding  the 
parenthesis,  and,  since  in  v.  ^^'^  Yahweh  speaks,  not  to,  but  con- 
cerning, the  nations,  the  prophet  probably  intended  to  say.  Thus 
saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts  concerning  the  nations  that  plunder  you. 
He  nowhere  clearly  indicates  to  which  of  the  nations  he  refers. 
The  only  other  hint  of  their  identity  is  in  v.  "^",  and  this  is  easily 
misunderstood.  It  reminds  one  of  the  references  in  Is.  40^.  to 
Babylon  and  its  cruelty.  Cf.  47"  49-^  ^-^  etc.  This,  however,  can- 
not be  the  prophet's  thought;  for  the  oppression  and  deliverance 
of  which  he  is  now  speaking  are  subsequent  to  the  fall  of  that  city. 
The  key  to  the  problem  is  found  in  Ezekiel.  In  chs.  38  /.  of 
that  book  the  prophet  describes  an  invasion  of  "a  land  restored 
from  the  sword"  and  inhabited  by  "a  people  gathered  from  the 
nations,"  meaning  Palestine,  by  Gog,  the  great  prince  of  the  North, 
at  the  head  of  a  polyglot  horde  of  plunderers  (38"-  ^-  '-) ;  but  by  the 
help  of  Yahweh,  he  says,  the  chosen  people  will  finally  triumph 
and  "plunder  those  who  plunder  them."  Cf.  39'".  It  is  these 
nebulous  followers  of  Gog  on  whom  Yahweh  is  about  to  pronounce 
sentence.f  The  decree,  however,  is  again  delayed,  this  time  by 
a  reason  for  it  inserted,  apparently,  by  the  prophet,  for  he  that 
toucheth  yon  toucheth  the  apple  of  his  (Yahweh's)  eye.t  In  other 
words,  it  is  "the  jealousy  of  Yahweh  of  Hosts"  that  "will  do 
this."  Cf.  Is.  9«/'  Zc.  i"  8-.  On  the  figure,  see  Dt.  32^**  Ps.  if. 
13/9.  Yahweh,  finally  permitted  to  speak,  announces  his  pur- 
pose with  reference  to  the  nations  described.  /  will  wave  my  hand 
over  them,  he  says.  This  gesture  by  the  king  of  Assyria  (Is.  10^) 
denotes  a  threat;  when  attributed  to  Yahweh  (Is.  11^  19"),  like  that 
of  stretching  forth  the  hand,  which  is  a  favourite  with  Ezekiel  (6'\ 
etc.),  it  symbolises  the  exertion  of  his  omnipotent  power.  So  here, 
the  result  being  that  the  nations  over  whom  he  waves  his  hand  be- 

♦  Of  course,  if  this  clause  is  a  gloss,  its  value  as  evidence  that  in  this  paragraph  Zechariah 
is  the  speaker  is  somewhat  diminished.     Cf.  v.  '"/'. 

t  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  among  these  nations,  according  to  38^,  were  the  Persians;  but 
the  text  and  interpretation  of  that  passage  being  in  dispute,  it  is  not  safe  to  lay  much  stress 
upon  it.    Cf.  Ez.  27'". 

t  Not,  as  Ki.,  Bla.,  el  ai.  render  it,  his  own  eye. 


210/6.17/13  j^^ 

come  spoil  for  their  servants,  especially  the  Jews.  For  an  extended 
description  of  the  terrors  of  that  day,  see  Ez.  38"^-.  Note,  also, 
the  parallel  passage  (Ez.  39*°)  already  cited.  At  this  point  there 
is  a  slight  break  in  the  paragraph.  The  prophet  takes  advantage 
of  it  to  speak  for  himself  and  claim  divine  inspiration.  He  appeals 
to  the  future.  He  expects  that  the  prediction  just  made  will  be 
fulfilled.  When  it  is,  his  people,  he  is  confident,  whatever  they 
may  now  think  of  him,  will  recognise  him  as  a  genuine  prophet. 
Then,  he  says,  shall  ye  know  that  Yahweh  of  Hosts  sent  me.  This 
form  of  appeal  is  peculiar  to  Zechariah.  See  v.  ^^'"  4®  6*^,  and 
compare  one  very  common  in  Ezekiel,  "Then  shall  ye  (they)  know 
that  I  am  Yahweh"  (6^-  "),  etc.— 14/10.  The  prophet  takes  for 
granted  that  his  summons  will  be  heeded,  and  that  his  scattered 
compatriots  will  return  to  their  country.  In  fact,  he  goes  much 
further  and  calls  upon  the  daughter  of  Sion  to  sing  and  rejoice  at 
the  inspiring  prospect.  First  he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the 
promise,  /  will  come  and  dwell  in  thee.  Here,  as  in  Is.  10"^  and 
elsewhere,  the  daughter  of  Sion  seems,  strictly  speaking,  to  be  the 
city  of  Jerusalem,  rather  than  its  inhabitants;  hence  the  rendering 
in  thee;  but,  since  in  such  cases  the  writer  must  always  have  had 
the  people  in  mind,  the  exact  application  of  the  figure  is  not  of  the 
first  importance.  The  prophet  is  looking  forward  to  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  vision  in  which  Ezekiel  (43^  ^•)  saw  the  glory  of  Yah- 
weh come  from  the  east  and,  entering  the  new  temple,  fill  the  whole 
house;  and  heard  a  voice  from  the  house,  saying,  "The  site  of  my 
throne  .  .  .,  where  I  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael forever."  The  residence  of  Yahweh  in  Jerusalem,  however, 
meant  more  to  Zechariah  than  a  splendid  spectacle,  or  even  the 
richest  material  blessings  that  he  could  imagine;  for  in  8^  he  repre- 
sents the  divine  presence  as  manifesting  itself  in  the  transformation 
of  the  city  into  the  likeness  of  his  faithfulness  and  holiness.  Cf. 
8^. — 15/11.  This  is  a  lofty  conception,  but  narrow  withal.  The 
Second  Isaiah  had  taught  a  larger  doctrine,  especially  in  those  pas- 
sages in  which  he  sought  to  enlist  his  people  in  a  mission  to  the 
world.  Cf.  42^  49^,  etc.  His  teaching  found  a  faint  echo  in 
Hg.  2'.  Zechariah  boldly  adopts  it.  Many  nations,  he  says,  as 
if  he  were  reproducing  Mi.  4*  ^-j  shall  join  themselves  to  Yahweh  in 


144  ZECHARIAH 

that  day.  This  means  more  than  the  homage,  tribute  or  service  of 
Is.  45"  ^-  49'  55^  ^■.  It  means,  as  the  next  verse  clearly  teaches, 
the  acceptance  of  the  invitation  of  Is.  45^^  and  the  unlimited  ex- 
tension of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Cf.  Is.  44^.  And  they,  the 
other  nations,  as  well  as  the  Jews,  the  prophet  makes  Yahweh  say, 
sJiall  be  to  him  a  people.  Zechariah,  however,  is  not  a  thorough- 
going universalist,  for  he  adds,  always  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  and 
he  will  dwell,  not  among  them,  but  in  thee.  In  other  words,  al- 
though all  nations  may  now  be  received  into  the  covenant  with 
Yahweh,  he  cannot  be  everywhere  worshipped;  but — and  this  is 
made  as  clear  in  S"**  ^-  as  in  Micah — the  new  temple  at  Jerusalem 
is  the  shrine,  and  the  only  one,  of  the  God  of  the  whole  earth.  It 
is  therefore  not  strange  that  in  6^^  the  most  remote  peoples  are  to 
share  the  labour  and  honour  of  rebuilding  the  sanctuary.  This, 
the  attainment  of  Yahweh's  purpose,  will  also  redound  to  the 
honour  of  the  prophet,  as  he,  thereby  disturbing  the  course  of 
his  own  discourse,  reminds  the  reader. 

16/12.  That  the  interpretation  above  given  is  the  correct  one, 
is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  Zechariah  dwells  on  the  thought  of  a 
peculiar  relation  between  Yahweh  and  Jerusalem.  When  Yahweh 
returns,  he  says,  he  will  take  possession,  or,  supplying  the  adverb 
from  the  next  clause,  again  take  possession,  of  Judah  as  his  portion 
in  the  holy  soil  of  Palestine,  the  rest  having  been  alienated  through 
the  fault  of  Israel,  and  again  take  pleasure  in  its  capital,  and  the 
seat  of  its  sanctuary,  Jerusalem.  Cf.  3^  Is.  14*. — 17/13.  The  re- 
tiun  of  Yahweh  to  his  sanctuary,  as  Ezekiel  describes  it  (43*  ^■),  is 
a  spectacle  calculated  to  fill  the  beholder  with  wonder  and  rever- 
ence. The  prophet  says  that,  when  he  saw  the  earth  aglow  with 
the  divine  splendour,  and  heard  the  voice  that  proceeded  from  it 
"like  the  sound  of  much  water,"  he  fell  on  his  face.  If,  as  has 
been  suggested,  Zechariah  had  this  passage  in  mind,  as  he  was 
WTiting,  it  was  natural  that  he  should  close  the  paragraph  by  requir- 
ing that  men  should  greet  with  awful  attention  the  great  event  that 
he  had  predicted.  The  words  he  uses  are  an  adaptation  of  Hb. 
2^".  The  first  clause,  Silence  all  flesh  before  Yahweh,  is  virtually 
a  repetition  of  the  original,  but  the  second  is  recast,  the  reason  for 
the  change  being  that,  while  Habakkuk  was  thinking  of  God  en- 


210/6.17/13  j^^ 

throned  in  heaven,  Zechariah  wishes  to  represent  him  as  issuing, 
after  a  period  of  inactivity  (Is.  42"),  from  his  heavenly  temple  to 
occupy  the  earthly  sanctuary  that  his  people  have  prepared  for 
him.  Hence  he  says,  not  "Yahweh  is  in  his  holy  temple,"  but 
Yahweh  hath  roused  himself  from  his  holy  abode.  On  the  heavenly 
temple,  see  further  Dt.  26'^  Je.  25^°  Ps.  29^,  etc. 

That  Zechariah  was  interested  in  the  movement  to  rebuild  the 
temple  appears  on  the  surface  of  his  prophecies;  but  the  casual 
reader  would  probably  think  of  him  as  second  to  Haggai,  both  with 
respect  to  his  zeal  for  the  enterprise  and  his  ability  to  further  it. 
The  study  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  his  book  ought  to  have  shown 
that  any  such  estimate  of  him  is  mistaken.  He  was  thoroughly 
in  sympathy  with  his  (presumably)  older  contemporary.  The 
thought  of  the  temple  dominates  these  visions  throughout.  His 
influence  on  the  more  thoughtful  among  his  people  must  have  been 
greater  and  more  lasting  than  that  of  Haggai,  because  he  appealed 
to  that  which  was  noblest  in  those  whom  he  addressed.  His  mes- 
sage was,  Seek  first  Yahweh  and  his  vivifying  presence,  and  all 
these  things  shall  be  added  to  you.  An  appeal  of  this  sort  will 
bear  unlimited  emphasis  and  repetition.  It  is  therefore  probable 
that  it  was  the  preaching  of  Zechariah,  rather  than  that  of  Hag- 
gai, which,  after  the  first  enthusiasm  had  subsided,  held  the  Jews 
to  their  sacred  but  laborious  task,  during  the  four  years  that 
elapsed  before  the  temple  was  completed. 

10/6.  iDji]  Rd.,  with  (B  "B  B,  1DIJ. — J?2it<3]  (5,  iK  ruv  recra-dpwv 
=  yaiNC,  which  would  have  no  sense  with  ^itriD  in  this  connec- 
tion. For  the  latter,  therefore,  (g  has  ffvvd^u  =  *nx3p  (We.)  or  'Psdx 
(Che.).  If  these  readings  be  adopted,  as  they  are  by  the  later  critics,  the 
whole  clause  becomes  a  parallel  to  the  one  that  precedes  it.  But  the  latter 
has  its  proper  parallel  in  v.  ".  This  being  the  case,  the  one  now  under 
consideration  may  pretty  safely  be  regarded  as  a  gloss  and  interpreted 
with  the  greater  freedom.  It  seems  necessary,  however,  to  emend  the 
current  text  unless  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  glossator  had  in  mind  6^ 
in  its  present  form,  and  meant  to  make  Yahweh  say  he  had  dispersed  his 
people  as  he  was  wont  to  despatch  his  messengers.  The  alternative  is  to 
adopt  a  reading,  paixa,  found  in  23  mss.  and  several  of  the  earliest  edd., 
and  supported  by  U  and  &.  So  Dathe,  New.  This  reading,  whether 
the  prep,  be  rendered  into  (to)  or  by,  has  a  familiar  sound.  In  Je.  49'* 
the  two  ideas  are  combined.     Here  the  rendering  to  seems  the  more  suit- 


146  ZECHARIAH 

able. — On  the  meaning  of  ^ntnc,  see  Ps.  68'^"<. — 11/7.  ■'tj'i'cn  jvx] 
<S,  Et's  Setdj;/  avaffw^fade  (fli)  =  'bSch  njrx.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  The 
voc,  however,  is  certainly  more  natural  after  mh,  and  13  S»  ®  all  have 
this  construction.  Cf.  Je.  22I8. — ^dfon]  The  accent  not  being  thrown 
back  as  usual  in  pause.  Cf.  Ges.  5  ">•  <  C")  "0'=. — nj]  Hi.  et  al.  cite  Je. 
46"  in  defence  of  this  word,  but  the  passages  are  not  parallel,  for  Jere- 
miah addresses  the  people  of  Egypt,  not  those  who  are  sojourning  with 
them.  This  seems  a  pretty  clear  case  of  dittography. — 12/8.  The  ren- 
dering given  to  ">nN  is  the  only  one  permissible,  the  attempts  to  make  it 
denote  aim  or  purpose  being  forbidden  by  Hebrew  usage.  So  AE.,  who 
has  the  excellent  paraphrase,  "After  sending  his  glory  to  me  he  sent  me." 
This  explanation  renders  the  emendations  of  Houb.  (^:n^t;'  1133  tnN), 
Oort  {''irhu  inDS  -iu'n)  and  Che.  {-\r^'d  Tiao  \-\i()  unnecessary. — 1133] 
Better  1133^. — On  Sn  in  the  sense  of  concerning,  see  Is.  37"  Je.  22", 
etc.  The  S;j  of  ^  QJ  represents  a  prevalent  mistake  with  reference  to  the 
connection. — n333]  Some  mss.  have  033,  a  reading  that  may  have  been 
suggested  by  Ps.  17';  where,  however,  as  in  La.  2'«,  n3  is  probably  a 
gloss. — irp  is  one  of  the  18  so-called  anab  'Jipn,  or  corrections  of  the 
scribes,  a  list  of  which  is  given  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  of  Numbers 
and  again  at  Ps.  106-*.  Tradition  says  that  the  original  reading  was 
^ry,  but  that  the  scribes,  thinking  it  derogatory  to  the  Deity  so  distinctly 
to  attribute  to  him  bodily  parts,  substituted  this  one.  The  implication 
is  that  the  word  should  be  rendered  his  own  eye,  but  this  rendering,  which 
has  no  support  in  the  Versions,  except  in  the  sui  of  some  mss.  of  51  B,  is 
neither  necessary  nor  natural.  If,  however,  the  clause  is  parenthetical, 
and  the  natural  antecedent  of  the  sf.  of  this  word  Yahweh,  the  tradition 
above  cited  is  clearly  mistaken.  See  Nu.  12'^,  where  it  is  impossible  to 
believe  that,  as  tradition  asserts,  the  original  text  had  ucn  and  ijni:'3.  On 
the  0''jipn,  cf.  Gins.'"'-,  347  ff. — 13/9.  's]  After  the  parenthesis  this 
particle  introduces  the  words  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Ges.  5  '^^  (*). — ann3j:^^] 
Kenn.  96  has  ann3'';'S,  and  this  is  the  reading  favoured  by  ^  B  &  SI; 
but  most  of  the  mss. — de  Ro.  cites  38 — and  nearly  all  of  the  earliest  cdd. 
treat  the  word  as  a  noun.  So  also  Norzi,  Baer,  Gins.,  Kit. — The  final 
clause,  ace.  to  Marti,  is  an  editorial  addition.  His  reason  for  this  opin- 
ion is  that  it  implies  doubt  concerning  Zechariah's  commission,  which 
would  hardly  have  arisen  in  his  lifetime.  There  arc,  however,  consider- 
ations that  make  for  genuineness.  This  appeal  to  the  future,  as  has  al- 
ready been  noted,  is  more  than  once  repeated,  but  not  at  random.  Cf. 
V.  "  4'  6'5.  In  every  instance  it  occurs  in  a  passage  supplemental  to  the 
recital  of  a  vision  or  other  revelation,  constituting  a  feature  of  such  pas- 
sages. This  being  the  case,  if  the  given  passage  has  the  marks  of  Zecha- 
rian  authorship,  it  would  seem  safe  to  recognise  this  feature  of  it  as  genu- 
ine.— ''jnSB']  Kenn.  150  adds  03''Sn  probably  because  it,  or  tiSn,  appears 
in  all  the  parallel  passages. — 14/10.  ij-i]  On  the  accent,  milra\  cf.  Ges. 


%67.  8.  R.  12  (*).— 15/11.  •'S]  Read,  with  05  S>,  iS,  and  for  ^njstri,  with 
&,  pB'i.  (6  has  the  clearly  mistaken,  but  easily  explained,  reading  Kal 
Karaa-KTiviiffovffiv  =  ijdk'i,  the  pi.  for  the  sg. — The  whole  of  v.  ''b  is  pro- 
nounced secondary  by  Marti,  and  there  is  less  to  be  said  for  the  appeal  to 
the  future  here  than  in  v.  ";  but  too  much  stress  must  not  be  laid  upon 
the  abruptness  with  which  it  is  introduced,  for  in  Ezekiel  the  similar  ex- 
pression, "and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  Yahweh,"  is  repeatedly  used  with 
little  regard  to  the  connection.  Cf.  Ez.  ii'"-  '^  139-  ",  etc. — 17/14. 
nip]  On  the  Niph.,  cf.  Ges.  ^  «■  ''■^^-  ^-  «.— pjJDD]  (S,  ^k  vetpfXQy  = 
\jjyD;  ij,  de  nubibus;  g'LU  l^ojie  =  ons;  but  0^.  =m^ 


h.  The  anointed  of  Yahweh  (3^-4^^  4'"^-'*). 

The  second  group  consists  of  two  visions.  Thiey  have  to  do  with 
the  persons  and  fortunes  of  the  two  leaders  who  represented  the 
Jewish  community  in  the  time  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah. 


(l)    THE   ACCUSED   HIGH  PRIEST    (CH.    3). 

In  this  vision  the  high  priest  Joshua,  haled  before  the  angel  of 
Yahweh  by  the  Adversary,  is  acquitted  (vv.  ^'^),  and  endowed  anew 
with  high  functions  and  privileges  (w.  ^'^*') . 

(a)  The  acquittal  (vv  }'^) . — The  prophet  first  sees  the  high  priest, 
as  a  culprit,  before  the  angel  of  Yahweh.  The  latter  rebukes  the 
Adversary  for  his  complaint,  and  then,  having  released  the  accused, 
has  him  stripped  of  his  soiled  garments  and  clothed  in  becoming 
apparel. 

1.  The  same  form  of  expression  is  used  in  introducing  this  vision 
as  in  2^/x^^,  Then  Yahweh  showed  me.  The  place  where  the  scene 
is  laid  is  not  mentioned.  One  is  reminded  of  similar  scenes  at  the 
court  of  heaven;  for  example,  that  described  by  Micaiah,  when  he 
was  summoned  by  Ahab  to  advise  him  with  reference  to  a  projected 
expedition  against  Ramoth  Gilead  (i  K.  22''"^),  in  which  Yahweh 
appears  seated,  "on  his  throne,  with  all  the  host  of  heaven  stand- 
ing by  him  on  the  right  and  on  the  left " ;  but  especially  of  that  por- 
trayed in  Jb.  i"*-,  in  which  "the  sons  of  God"  come  "to  present 
themselves  before  Yahweh,"  the  Adversary  among  them.  In  both 
of  these  scenes,  however,  all  the  persons  represented  are  celestial 


148  ZECHARIAH 

beings,  while  in  this  one  of  the  principal  figures  is  Joshua  the  high 
priest.*  Moreover,  it  is  not,  in  this  instance,  Yahweh  before  whom 
the  other  persons  are  assembled,  but  the  angel  of  Yahweh,  a  (or 
the)  manifestation  of  the  Deity  in  human  form,  which  might  be, 
and,  according  to  various  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  often 
was,  called  a  man.  So  in  i^.  Now,  since  the  human  form  was 
assumed  for  the  purpose  of  communion  with  men,  the  presence 
of  the  angel  of  Yahweh  implies  mundane  surroundings.  Hence, 
the  prophet  must  have  conceived  of  the  scene  here  described  as 
taking  place  on  earth,  and,  indeed,  in  or  near  Jerusalem.  Wher- 
ever it  was,  the  angel  of  Yahweh  was,  so  to  speak,  holding  court, 
and  Joshua  was  before  him.f  Cf.  v.  ^.  Not  in  the  unfinished 
temple,  as  Theodoret  and  others  have  supposed,  for  there  the 
high  priest  would  have  been  before  Yahweh,  and  hardly  in  soiled 
clothing.  Present  also  was  the  Adversary,  who  was  standing  at 
his  (Joshua's)  right  hand.  The  rendering  Adversary  is  much 
preferable  in  this  connection  to  Satan  (EV.),  although  the  latter 
is  a  literal  transcript  of  the  original.  In  fact,  "Satan,"  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  modem  world  has  learned  from  the  New 
Testament  to  use  it,  would  be  misleading;  for  the  conception 
of  Satan  as  a  definite  personality  hostile  to  God  and  the  good 
is  the  result  of  a  development  which  had  hardly  begun  when 
Zechariah  prophesied.  The  process  can  be  traced.  Thus,  in 
the  first  of  the  two  scenes  cited  the  deceiver  is  not  an  angel  dis- 
tinguished from  the  rest  by  a  peculiar  title  or  character,  but  the 
one  who,  when  Yahweh  asks,  "Who  shall  deceive  Ahab?"  seems 
to  him  to  have  the  best  plan  for  so  doing,  and  goes  by  divine  direc- 
tion on  his  mischievous  errand.  C/".  i  K.  22'"  ^•.  This  immediate 
dependence  upon  the  will  of  Yahweh  makes  the  latter  responsible 
for  all  physical  evil.  Cf.  Am.  3"  Is.  45^,  etc.  In  the  book  of  Job 
the  corresponding  figure  has  acquired  a  title,  "the  Adversary," 
and  a  sceptical  and  censorious  character.  Moreover,  he  acts  on 
his  own  initiative  (Jb.  i^  2').  Still  there  are  limits  to  his  activity, 
for  Yahweh  does  not  allow  him  to  do  serious  or  irretrievable  harm 


*  For  details  with  reference  to  him  and  his  office,  see  Hg.  i'  and  the  comments  thereon, 
t  On  the  expression  stand  bcjore,  of  a  defendant,  see  further,  Xu.  35'-  Dt.  19"  Jos.  20* 
I  K.  3". 


3*"'  149 

to  those  who  are  temporarily  placed  in  his  power.  Cj.  Jb.  i'^  2^. 
By  the  time  of  the  Chronicler  the  final  stage  seems  to  have  been 
reached;  for,  in  i  Ch.  2i\  the  title  "  the  Adversary  "  has  become  the 
proper  name  "Satan,"  and  the  character  thus  designated  employs 
his  supernatural  faculties  to  tempt  man  and  thwart  the  purposes 
of  God.  Cf.  EB.  (Gray),  art.  Satan;  Smend,  AR.,  431/.;  Marti, 
SK.,  1892,  207/.;  Toy,  JBL.,  Lx,  17/.*  The  Adversary  of  this 
vision  is  certainly  not  the  malicious  power  just  described.  He  is 
more  nearly  akin  to  Job's  tormentor,  but,  as  will  appear,  he  be- 
longs to  another  period  and  performs  a  different  function.  The 
prophet  describes  him  as  standing  on  Joshua's  right  hand  to  accuse 
him.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  special  significance  in  the 
mention  of  the  right  hand.  The  Hebrews  frequently  used  right 
hand  in  parallelism  with  (Ps.  21^*''"*  89"''^^  iSQ^**?  etc.),  or  as  the 
equivalent  of,  unmodified  hand.  Cf.  Ps.  45^'''  48"/*"  66^^%  etc. 
Hence  it  is  best  to  interpret  at  his  right  hand  here  as  only  a  more 
definite  and  pictorial  way  of  saying  at  his  side.  It  is  clearly  so 
used  in  Ps.  109^^  where  Yahweh  is  represented  as  standing  "at  the 
right  hand  of  the  needy"  to  defend  him. 

2.  The  prophet  does  not  go  into  unnecessary  details.  He  notes 
the  positions  of  the  parties,  and  leads  one  to  expect  that  the  next 
thing  ^\^ll  be  the  complaint;  but  he  does  not  even  state  that  the  com- 
plaint was  brought,  much  less  recite  the  offence  or  offences  of  which 
the  high  priest  was  accused.  Indeed,  he  seems  to  have  intended 
to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Adversary  was  interrupted,  not,  as  in 
the  received  text,  by  Yahweh,  but  by  the  angel  of  Yahweh,  as  he 
was  about  to  present  his  case.  This  interpretation  certainly  har- 
monises with  the  tone  and  apparent  intent  of  the  vision  as  a  whole. 
In  any  case,  the  angel  of  Yahweh  silences  the  Adversary  with  an 
indignant  objurgation,  Yahweh  rebuke  thee,  which  furnishes  an- 
other example  of  the  care  the  Hebrews  sometimes  took  to  dis- 
tinguish between  Yahweh  and  the  angel  of  his  presence.     Cf. 


*  An  idea  of  the  change  that  had  taken  place  in  the  views  of  the  Jews  on  the  subject  of  evil 
may  be  obtained  by  comparing  i  Ch.  21'  with  the  parallel  passage  2  S.  24',  where  it  is  not 
Satan,  but  Yahweh,  who  incites  David  to  number  Israel.  Wright  cites  Ps.  100*  as  another  in- 
stance of  the  use  of  j-JU'  as  a  proper  name;  but  the  parallelism  shows  that  it  is  there  a  synonym 
for  pu'"^,  Wicked.  For  a  still  more  complete  doctrine  concerning  Satan,  see  Jude  '  Rev.  12'^-, 
in  both  of  which  passages  there  is  evident  allusion  to  the  scene  here  described. 


150  ZECHARTAH 

:'''  2^/v°.  The  ground  of  the  indignation  expressed  is  found  in  a 
mixture  of  two  sentiments  that  have  already  shown  themselves. 
The  first  reappears  in  connection  with  the  repetition  of  the  just 
quoted  words,  where  Yahweh  is  described  as  the  one  who  delighleth 
in  Jerusalem.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  partiality  for  the  Judean 
capital  asserted  in  i".  The  other  betrays  itself  in  the  question, 
Is  not  this  a  brand  plucked  from  the  fire?  The  figure  is  borrowed 
from  Amos  (4"),  who  used  it  of  the  remnant  of  Israel  after  one  of 
Yahweh's  destructive  visitations.  The  Jewish  exegetes  find  here 
an  allusion  to  the  miraculous  escape  of  the  high  priest  from  a  fur- 
nace into  which  he  and  the  false  prophets  Ahab  and  Zedekiah 
had  been  cast  by  Sennacherib  (sic) ;  but  there  is  no  ground  for 
believing  that  he  ever  had  any  such  experience.*  It  is  probable 
that  the  high  priest  here  represents  the  survivors  from  the  over- 
throw of  Judah,  and  that  the  question  put  into  the  mouth  of  the 
angel  of  Yahweh,  like  the  declaration  of  i*^,  is  an  expression  of 
sympathy  with  them  in  their  excessive  suiTering.  It  is  as  if  he  had 
said,  "Hath  he  not  already  suffered  beyond  his  desert?"  Cf.  Is. 
40^.j- — 3.  Meanwhile  Joshua,  clothed  in  filthy  garments,  was  stand- 
ing before  the  angel  of  Yahweh.  The  filthy  garments  signify,  not 
grief,  but  iniquity,  as  the  nature  of  the  figure  would  lead  one  to 
expect  and  an  explanatory  gloss  in  the  next  verse  expressly  teaches. 
The  guilt  thus  symbolised  has  been  supposed  to  be  that  of  the  high 
priest  himself  as  an  individual  or  an  official  ;|  but  if,  as  has  been 
shown,  he  here  represents  the  Jewish  peoj^le,  or  at  least  the  Judean 
community,  the  garments  he  wears  must  be  interpreted  as  setting 
forth  the  character  and  condition  of  those  represented.  It  is 
therefore  safe  to  conclude  that  the  prophet  in  this  vision  intended 
to  represent  Judah  as  still,  in  spite  of  the  penalties  endured,  guilty 
before  God,  and  so  evidently  guilty  that,  as  the  high  priest's  silence 

*  For  the  details  of  the  story,  see  Wright,  si  /• 

t  The  likeness  of  the  part  here  taken  by  the  angel  of  Yahweh  to  that  assigned  to  Michael 
in  Dn.  lo''-  ^i  12'  naturally  led  to  their  early  identification.  Cj.  Rev.  12'".  Of  the  later  com- 
mentators Wright  has  adopted  this  view.  There  is,  indeed,  a  relation  between  the  two  figures, 
but  it  is  not  one  of  identity;  the  truth  being  that  Michael  represents  a  later  development  than 
the  angel  of  Yahweh,  and  a  further  differentiation  and  personification  of  the  powers  and 
attributes  by  which  the  Deity  was  brought  into  a  helpful  relation  with  man.  Cj.  DB.,  art 
Michael. 

X  The  Targum  says  that  Joshua  "had  sons  who  took  to  themselves  wives  unfit  for  the  priest- 
h'xxl." 


would  suggest,  an  express  accusation  was  unnecessary  and  a  suc- 
cessful defence  impossible.  What,  then,  are  the  function  and  sig- 
nificance of  the  Adversary?  The  answer  to  this  question  must  be 
inferred  from  the  attitude  of  the  angel  of  Yahweh  toward  him 
in  his  relation  to  Joshua.  Now,  in  v.  ^  the  angel  of  Yahweh  is 
clearly  depicted  as  the  protector  of  the  high  priest  against  the  Ad- 
versary, an  attitude  that  can  best  be  explained  by  supposing  that 
the  function  of  the  latter,  in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  was  not  to 
prove  so  much  as  to  recall  the  iniquity  of  the  former  and  insist 
upon  the  infliction  of  the  appropriate  penalty.  In  other  words,  he 
represents,  not,  as  Marti  claims,  the  doubt  and  hesitation  with  ref- 
erence to  the  possibility  of  the  restoration  of  Judah  current  among 
the  people,  but  the  justice  of  Yahweh  as  contrasted  with  his  mercy. 
The  reproof  of  the  Adversary  by  the  angel  of  Yahweh  signifies  the 
triumph  of  the  milder  attribute,  that  is,  that  Yahweh  has  deter- 
mined to  save  his  people,  because  they  are  his  people  and  their  suf- 
ferings appeal  to  his  sympathy,  by  an  act  of  grace  in  spite  of  their 
unworthiness.  CJ.  Ho.  ii^  Mi.  7^^-  Is.  43^ ^•.  It  is  from  this 
standpoint  that  the  vision  becomes,  on  the  one  hand,  a  rebuke  to  the 
sceptics  of  Zechariah's  day,  and,  on  the  other,  a  solace  for  those 
who,  much  as  they  had  suffered  and  were  suffering,  as  they  felt, 
under  the  divine  displeasure,  had  retained  their  faith  in  Yahweh 
and  still  cherished  an  ardent  hope  that  he  would  speedily  forgive 
their  iniquities  and  rescue  them  from  destruction. 

4.  The  angel  of  Yahweh,  having  silenced  the  Adversary,  turns 
to  those  standing  before  him, — not,  as  Blayney  explains,  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  high  priest,  but  the  other  members  of  the  heavenly 
train, — and  commands  them  to  remove  from  Joshua  the  filthy  gar- 
ments, the  sign  and  symbol  of  the  people's  unworthiness,  and 
clothe  him  in  robes  of  state  befitting  his  office  as  the  religious  head 
and  representative  of  a  chosen  people.  In  the  Massoretic  text 
these  two  commands  are  separated  by  an  interpretative  passage, 
which,  however,  as  has  already  been  noted,  is  evidently  a  gloss. 
It  betrays  its  origin  by  the  disturbance  it  creates  in  the  order  of 
thought.  The  interpolated  statement,  See,  I  have  caused  thy  in- 
iquity to  pass  from  thee,  may  have  been  intended  to  mean  that  the 
iniquity  was  personal.    This  is  the  opinion  represented  by  the 


152  ZECHARIAH 

Targum,  which  substitutes  for  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  original 
a  command  to  the  attendants  to  direct  Joshua  to  "bring  forth  the 
wives  unfit  for  the  priesthood,"  that  is,  unfit  to  be  the  wives  of 
priests,  "from  his  house."  This  interpretation  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  Ezr.  lo^*  ^■,  but,  if  it  is  correct,  since  the  passage  thus 
paraphrased  is  a  gloss,  it  only  shows  how  greatly  Zechariah  was 
misunderstood. — 5.  The  angel  of  Yahweh  finally  commands  his 
attendants  to  put  a  clean  turban  on  his  head.  In  v.  ^,  where  the 
appearance  of  Joshua  is  described,  there  was  no  reference  to  a 
turban,  but  the  use  of  the  word  clean  here  shows  that  the  prophet 
did  not  intend  to  represent  him  as  without  a  head-dress.  The  one 
named,*  which  is  mentioned  only  five  times  in  the  Old  Testament, 
was  worn,  not  only  by  priests,  but  by  other  persons  of  rank  or 
wealth,  women  as  well  as  men.  Cf.  Is.  3^^  62^.  In  Exodus  the 
head-dress  of  the  high  priest,  which,  since  it  had  a  related  name,-j- 
must  have  been  of  a  similar  form,  is  described  as  made  of  fine 
linen  and  ornamented  with  an  inscribed  plate  of  gold.  CJ.  Ex. 
2^28. 30  f._  'pj^g  j.ggj  q£  ij^g  verse  describes  the  fulfilment  of  the 
last  two  commands.  In  the  Massoretic  text  the  order  of  fulfil- 
ment is  the  reverse  of  that  in  which  the  commands  were  given;  but 
in  the  Greek  it  is  the  same,  and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  Zech- 
ariah wrote  that  they  clothed  him  in  goodly  garments  and  put  a  clean 
turban  upon  his  head.  The  adjective  goodly  is  not  in  the  text,  but  it 
is  required  to  distinguish  the  garments  now  put  upon  the  priest 
from  those  that  had  been  removed,  and  may  therefore  properly  be 
supplied.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the 
garments  in  which  Joshua  has  been  arrayed  are  official  robes,  as 
Drusius  and  others  have  held.  The  emphasis  is  all  on  the  fact  that 
they  are  clean,  and,  as  such,  signify  that  Yahweh  has  for  his  own 
sake,  "independently  of  any  sacrifice  or  offering  whatever"  (Ston- 
ard),  at  last  blotted  out  all  the  transgressions  of  his  people.  The 
account  of  the  ceremony  might  have  ended  with  the  words  last 
quoted;  but  the  prophet,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  scene  a  more 
vivid  reality,  adds  that,  while  the  attendants  were  reclothing 
Joshua,  the  angel  of  Yahweh  stood  by  to  see  that  his  commands 
were  obeyed.     Cf.  Gn.  18"  Ju.  if''. 

*  I^JX.  t  PDJXD. 


3''"  153 

1.  'jN-i-i]  Add,  with  CS  "B,  ^^^\  as  in  i-"  2^.  It  will  then  be  im- 
possible to  make  the  mistake  of  supposing,  as  Blayney,  Henderson  and 
others  have  done,  that  the  subject  of  the  verb  is  the  interpreter.  The  in- 
terpreter explained,  but  he  did  not  produce,  visions. — UK!!:''?]  On  the  vocal- 
isation (i),  cf.  Ges.  i  «'•  >  R-  '.—2.  mn^i]  Rd.,  with  &,  nin^  ^^^SD.  So 
We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 3.  'ji  j?t'inii]  A  circumstantial  clause.  Cf. 
Ges.  %  "2-  »  '*)  i^-  >.— in'-ch]  Rd.,  with  <gQ  »,  nin>  inSc. — 4.  ]y>^]  & 
adds,  for  the  sake  of  definiteness,  ^jll^. — V'S — i-Xm]  A  good  reason 
for  suspecting  the  genuineness  of  these  words  has  already  been  given  in 
the  comments.  The  truth  is  that  they  disturb  the  connection  of  thought 
to  such  a  degree  that  the  situation  can  easily  be  made  to  appear  ridiculous; 
for  Joshua  is  left  standing  unclothed,  not  only  while  the  angel  of  Yahweh 
makes  this  explanation,  but  until  the  prophet  himself  has  suggested  the 
addition  of  a  turban  to  his  new  apparel.  Omit  this  passage,  and  the 
rest  of  the  verse  can  easily  be  brought  into  harmony  with  itself  and  the 
context.  The  final  clause,  which  has  been  adapted  to  the  gloss,  must 
still  be  emended,  for  it  also,  as  appears  from  v.  ^,  was  originally  ad- 
dressed to  the  attendants.  This  can  easily  be  done  with  the  help  of  (5, 
which  reads,  Kal  ivStJo-are  avTt>v,  i.  e.,  int<  ir'^aSni.  So  also  51.  Most 
mss.  of  (6  om.  T'S'",  but  L  has  air6  <rov.  It  is  interesting,  as  throwing 
light  upon  the  origin  of  glosses  like  the  one  here  found,  to  note  that  (g"^'*^ 
and  a  few  curss.  have  expanded  this  one  into  a  parallelism: 

Kal  ris  ifiaprlas  <rov  irepiKaOapl^o); 

Van  H.  removes  it  from  its  present  position  to  the  end  of  v. ". — 5.  idki] 
H  &  have  the  3  p.;  but  (6  more  correctly  om.,  commencing  the  verse 
with  Kal  iirid€T€,  i.  e.,  not  iD"'i;'>i,  but  iD-'U'i,  without  doubt  the  original 
reading.  So  also  H.  The  removal  of  ncNi,  a  corruption  of  ionm,  which 
was  inserted  to  bring  the  discourse  back  to  the  direction  of  the  attend- 
ants, makes  the  following  clause,  emended  as  above,  a  continuation  of 
V.  *,  to  which  it  should  be  attached. — iina]  We.  regards  the  word  as 
superfluous;  but  the  omission  of  it  would  affect  the  meaning  of  the  vision, 
reducing  the  emphasis  on  the  previous  impurity  of  the  high  priest. — 
Dnja — iD^tTM]  The  order  of  fulfilment,  as  here  described,  is  unnatural 
as  well  as  inconsistent  with  that  of  the  commands  given.  In  (S^Q  the  ar- 
rangement is  reversed,  and  the  excellence  of  the  Greek  readings  through- 
out this  paragraph  speaks  strongly  for  this  one. — a^'ija]  Add,  with  &, 
D'ai:3,  or,  with  We.,  amn^. — ^SJ']  We.,  et  al.,  point  this  word  as  a  pf. 
and  connect  the  whole  clause  to  which  it  belongs  with  v.  «.  This  method 
of  disposing  of  the  clause,  however,  is  certainly  mistaken,  (i)  The  vb. 
nay  is  very  rare  in  the  sense  of  auftreten,  which  these  scholars  give  to  it. 
Cf.  BDB.  (2)  The  thought  that  they  find  in  the  sentence,  if  this  verb 
were  employed,  would  have  been  expressed  by  nin^  ^n'^d  icyi.     (3)  If, 


154  ,  ZECHARIAH 

however,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  Zc.  had  adopted  the  present  arrange- 
ment, he  would  hardly  have  repeated  the  subject — which  We.  and  Now. 
suppress — in  the  following  sentence.  (4)  ^  (S  have  the  participial  con- 
struction, (5)  It  is  a  common  one,  and  there  are  several  cases  with  the 
prtc.  of  ncj;.  Cf.  Gn.  18"  1  K.  8'*  i3«.  Of  these  objections  (2)  and 
(5)  hold  against  van  H.,  who  attaches  v.  ■""*  to  the  end  of  this  verse. 
See  above. 


(b)  The  charge  (vv.  ^^*').  The  angel  of  Yahweh,  addressing 
Joshua,  promises  him  personally,  on  condition  of  loyalty,  an  ex- 
alted position,  and  his  people  forgiveness  and  prosperity. 

6.  The  symbolical  ceremony  completed,  the  angel  of  Yahweh 
turns  to  Joshua  and  speaks  to  him  for  the  first  time.  The  prophet 
says  he  charged  him,  that  is,  addressed  him  in  the  solemn  manner 
and  language  befitting  the  occasion.  Cf.  Dt.  8'",  etc.  This  ex- 
pression in  itself  would  lead  one  to  expect  an  utterance  having  a 
personal  rather  than  a  symbolical  significance. — 7.  This  expecta- 
tion is  fulfilled.  It  does  not,  hovv^ever,  at  first  appear  that  the  lan- 
guage used  has  a  personal  application.  The  first  condition,  for 
example,  if  thou  go  in  my  ways,  is  one  that  might  be  required  of  any 
Jev;^,  and  therefore  of  the  whole  people.  Nor  is  the  second,  if  thou 
keep  my  charge,  really  more  explicit;  for,  although  the  word  charge 
oftenest  denotes  the  office  or  fimction  of  the  priest,  it  is  also  used  in 
the  sense  of  a  behest  laid  upon  others  by  the  Deity  (Gn.  26''  Nu. 
^19.  23  j^^_  18^*^,  etc.),  and  the  relation  between  the  two  conditions 
requires  that  it  should  have  the  latter  meaning  in  the  present  in- 
stance. There  is  thus  far,  then,  no  certain  indication  that  Joshua 
has  ceased  to  be  a  symbolical  figure  and  resumed  his  ])ersonal  char- 
acter. The  conclusion,  however,  removes  all  uncertainty,  for  the 
promise  it  contains  is  one  personal  to  him  as  the  high  priest.  If  he 
is  loyal  to  Yahweh,  the  God  of  his  fathers,  and  careful  to  obey  all 
the  divine  precepts,  this  is  his  reward:  thou  shalt  rule  my  house  and 
keep  my  courts.  The  house,  of  course,  is  the  tem{)le,  now  being 
rebuilt,  and  the  courts  the  enclosures  by  which,  when  completed, 
it  will  be  surrounded.  The  declaration  here  made,  therefore, 
amounts  to  a  charter  granting  to  Joshua  and  his  successors  a  sole 
and  complete  control  in  matters  of  religion  never  before  enjoyed  by 
the  head  of  the  hierarchy  at  Jerusalem.     Cf.  i  K.  2-'^  2  K.  16'"  ^- 


3-""  155 

22'*^-;  Benz.,  Arch.,  410.  In  fact,  it  is  an  advance  upon  the  pro- 
gram of  Ezekiel  (45)  in  the  direction  of  the  priestly  legislation  of 
the  Pentateuch.*  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  high 
priest's  jurisdiction  is  here  confined  to  the  temple  and  its  precincts. 
— To  this  grant  of  authority  is  added  another  promise  of  great  sig- 
nificance to  the  community.  The  passage  has  been  variously  un- 
derstood. In  the  great  versions  it  is  rendered  as  if  it  referred  to 
descendants  of  the  high  priest. f  It  has  also  been  interpreted  as  a 
promise  that  Joshua  himself  shall  be  given  angelic  guides  to  direct 
and  defend  him  J  or  messengers  to  keep  him  in  communication  with 
heaven. §  There  are,  however,  reasons,  which  will  appear,  why 
all  these  interpretations  must  be  rejected  and  the  clause  be  trans- 
lated /  will  give  thee  access  among  those  that  stand  here.  But  who 
are  the  persons  meant?  and  when  shall  the  high  priest  enjoy  access 
among  them?  The  first  question  seems  to  be  answered  by  v.  *, 
where,  as  has  been  shown,  angels  are  intended.  In  reply  to  the 
second  it  has  been  taught  that  the  prophet  here  has  in  mind  the 
future  life.**  Zechariah,  however,  nowhere  else  presents  any  such 
motive  for  faithfulness.  Hence  the  chances  are  that,  as  most  mod- 
ern exegetes  agree,  in  this  case  it  is  the  privilege  of  direct  and  im- 
mediate commimion  with  Yahweh  with  which  he  is  dealing.  This 
is  a  privilege  not  granted  all  men  (Je.  30^^),  but  it  may  fitly  be  ac- 
corded to  a  faithful  high  priest.  It  is  also  one  that  has  great  sig- 
nificance for  the  community,  as  will  appear  later  in  the  paragraph. 
Cf.  V.  ^. — 8.  At  this  point  the  prophet  returns  to  the  symbolic 
method.  Yahweh,  addressing  the  high  priest,  says  Thou  and  thy 
fellows  that  sit  before  thee  are  men  of  omen.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  persons  here  called  the  fellows,  or  companions,  of  Joshua 
are  his  associates  in  the  priesthood.  The  only  question  is  whether 
Zechariah  thought  of  them  as  present  in  his  vision.  It  has  some- 
times been  answered  in  the  affirmative, |f  but  the  description  given 
is  certainly  calculated  to  produce  the  impression  that  the  high 

*  a.  Ex.  2829  f.  Nu.  27'8  «•;  Benz.,  Arch.,  318  /.,  422  /.;  WRS.o"C2.^  445  /. 

t  Thus  ®,  /  will  give  thee  those  moving  among  them  that  stand  by  ;  which  Theod.  Mops. 
explains  as  meaning  that  Yahweh  will  permit  Joshua  to  transmit  the  honour  conferred  upon 
him  to  successors.     Similarly  H  &. 

X  So  Cyr.,  Lu.,  Grot.,  Ston.,  Hd.,  el  al.  §  Baumgarten. 

**  So  OJ,  Ra.,  Ki.,  Pern.,  Dru.,  Marck,  Lowth,  Pu.,  cl  al. 

tt  So  Lowth,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Brd.,  van  H.,  el  al. 


156  ZECHARIAH 

priest  is  a  solitary  and  peculiarly  pathetic  figure.  His  associates 
are  mentioned  here  because  they  are  a  part  of  the  priesthood  which 
he  primarily  represents.  On  the  expression  sit  before,  see  2  K.  6*. 
The  description  of  the  priests  as  men  of  omen  recalls  a  saying  of 
Isaiah,  "I  and  the  children  that  Yahweh  hath  given  me  are  signs 
and  tokens  in  Israel."  Now,  Isaiah  in  this  passage  doubtless  re- 
ferred to  the  names  he  and  his  children  bore,  and  their  significance. 
There  is  no  means  of  learning  the  names  of  Joshua's  friends. 
Some,  if  not  many,  of  them  must  have  had  names  expressive  of 
faith  in  God  and  hope  for  their  people.  That  of  the  high  priest 
himself,  according  to  the  current  interpretation  of  it,  Yahweh  is 
help,  was  practically  the  equivalent  of  Isaiah;  a  fact  which  in 
itself  was  sufficient  to  suggest  to  Zechariah  an  imitation  of  his  great 
predecessor.*  In  any  case,  the  idea  seems  to  be  that  these  men,  the 
priests  as  a  class,  are  prophetic  of  good  to  the  community  they  are 
serving.  This  thought  was  not  developed  as  it  might  have  been 
by  Zechariah.  A  reader  of  a  later  time,  feeling  that  it  was  incom- 
plete, and  not  taking  pains  to  examine  the  context,  to  see  if  he  under- 
stood the  drift  of  the  passage,  added,  as  a  gloss, /or  (or  that)  I  will 
bring  my  servant  Shoot.'\  This  is  Marti's  explanation  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Shoot  in  this  connection ;  and  there  are  good  rea- 
sons for  accepting  it.  In  the  first  place,  as  Marti  says,  for  Zecha- 
riah the  Shoot  is  Zerubbabel.  This,  as  will  appear,  was  the  original 
teaching  of  6*^,  which  has  been  recast  to  make  it  a  prediction  of  the 
elevation  of  Joshua.  But  Zerubbabel  was  already  in  Jerusalem; 
had,  in  fact,  for  two  months  been  actively  engaged  in  the  restora- 
tion of  the  temple.  It  was  therefore  impossible  for  Zechariah  to 
speak  of  him  as  yet  to  be  brought  thither  by  Yahweh.  Indeed, — 
and  this  is  a  second  point, — there  is  no  place  for  him  in  this  con- 
nection. The  prophet  is  here  dealing  with  the  priesthood  and  its 
significance.  The  Shoot  represents  political  power  and  glory. 
Cf.  6*'. — 9.  The  omission  of  the  disturbing  clause  leaves  Joshua 
in  the  centre  of  the  scene.  To  him  Yahweh  now  directs  especial 
attention.    Lo,  he  says,  the  stone  that  I  have  delivered  to  Joshua. 

*C/.  alsoEz.  i2«"  24^- «. 

t  The  word  nsx,  here  translated  Shnol,  is  incorrectly  rendered  avaroXri  in  (S,  and  oriens  in 
B;  whence  the  "Dayspring"  of  Lu.  i". 


3"-"  157 

The  opinions  with  reference  to  this  stone  have  been  many  and  vari- 
ous. It  has  been  interpreted  as  meaning  material  for  the  new 
temple,*  the  corner-stonef  or  the  topstonej  of  the  edifice,  the  plum- 
met of  4^",!  a  precious  stone  for  the  prince,**  or  a  number  of  such 
stones  for  the  high  priest. f-j-  To  the  first  four  of  these  interpreta- 
tions there  is  the  common  objection  that,  according  to  4'-  ®  ^^  it  is 
Zerubbabel,  not  Joshua,  under  whose  direction  the  temple  is  to  be 
erected,  and  that  therefore  it  would  be  inconsistent  for  Zechariah 
to  represent  Joshua  as  receiving  material  for  the  structure  or  a 
plummet  by  which  to  build  it.  In  considering  the  second  and  the 
third  it  should  also  be  remembered  that  the  comer-stone  had  al- 
ready been  laid,  and  the  topstone  was  not  to  be  put  into  place  until 
a  long  time  after  the  date  of  this  vision.  An  additional  objection 
to  the  fourth  is  that  the  stone  in  question  is  to  be  engraved.  The 
key  to  the  prophet's  meaning  seems  to  be  in  the  parenthetical  clause 
rendered  in  AV.  upon  one  stone  shall  be  (RV.  are)  seven  eyes.  But 
the  "eye"  of  a  stone,  according  to  Ez.  i^^-  ^^,  is  the  gleam  from  it, 
and,  since  a  gleam  can  only  come  from  a  precious  stone,  and  seven 
gleams  from  as  many  facets  of  such  a  stone,  the  stone  in  question 
must  have  been  a  single  stone  with  seven  facets.  This  is  the  in- 
terpretation proposed  by  Wellhausen,  but  he  sees  in  the  stone  an 
ornament  for  Zerubbabel.  Cf.  6^^^-.  To  the  latter  feature  there 
are  strong  objections:  (i)  it  destroys  the  unity  of  the  paragraph ;  and 
(2)  renders  the  final  clause  of  this  verse  unintelligible,  there  being 
no  discoverable  connection  between  the  stone,  or  the  name  of 
Zerubbabel,  which,  according  to  Wellhausen,  was  to  have  been  en- 
graved on  it,  and  the  promise,  /  will  remove  the  iniquity  of  that  land. 
It  is  much  better  to  regard  the  stone  as  an  ornament  for  the  cos- 
tume of  the  high  priest,  for  the  following  reasons:  (i)  The  para- 
graph thus  acquires  the  desired  and  expected  unity.  (2)  The  next 
clause,  /  will  grave  its  inscription,  becomes  especially  significant. 
The  word  rendered  graveXX  is  used  almost  exclusively  of  engraving 
on  precious  stones.     In  Ex.  28,  where  the  costume  of  the  high 

*  So  Stah.,  Lowe. 

t  So  Ra.,  Ki.,  Marck,  Ston.,  The!.,  Rosenm.,  Hi.,  Pres.,  Hd.,  Wri.,  el  al. 

X  Lowth,  Mau.,  Ew.,  Burger,  Stei.,  Per.,  Marti,  et  al. 

§  AE.,  Ki.  (alt.),  Grot.  **  We.,  Now.  ft  Bredenkamp. 

%t  nriD. 


158  ZECHARIAH 

priest  is  described,  mention  is  made  of  no  fewer  than  fourteen  en- 
graved stones,  two  for  the  shoulders  (v.  ®),  and  twelve  for  the 
breastplate  (v.  ^^),  of  the  ephod.  Now,  while  it  would  be  unsafe 
to  claim  that  this  chapter  describes  the  ornamentation  of  the  ephod 
before  the  Exile,  there  seems  to  be  reason  for  supposing  that  it  is 
reliable  so  far  as  the  character  of  the  ornamentation  of  the  cos- 
tume of  the  chief  priest  is  concerned;  in  other  words,  that  the  head 
of  the  priesthood  then  and  afterward  actually  wore  an  engraved 
stone  (or  stones)  on  his  vestments.  (3)  The  promise  already 
quoted  becomes  intelligible.  On  this  point,  also,  the  descrip- 
tion of  Ex.  28  is  helpful.  In  v.  ^®  of  that  chapter  Moses  is  directed 
to  "make  a  i)late  of  pure  gold,  and  grave  upon  it  .  .  .  Holy  to 
Yahweh."  There  follows  (v.  ^*)  an  explanation  in  which  Yahweh 
says  that  Aaron  shall  wear  this  plate  on  his  forehead  in  token  that 
he  bears  "the  iniquity  of  the  holy  things"  offered  by  his  people, 
"that  they  (the  people)  may  be  accepted  before  Yahweh."  Here, 
again,  it  would  doubtless  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  law  attrib- 
uted to  Moses  reflects  the  practice  even  of  the  time  of  Zechariah ; 
— the  plate  of  gold  seems  to  forbid  such  an  assumption ; — but,  if 
this  law,  like  others  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  the  outcome  of  the  devel- 
opment of  the  Hebrew  ritual,  one  must  suppose  that  at  that  date 
the  idea  embodied  in  the  law  had  found  more  or  less  adequate  ex- 
pression, and  admit  the  possibility  that  it  is  the  idea  of  Zechariah 
in  the  passage  now  under  consideration. 

Sellin  (Stud.,  ii,  78  jf.)  cites  as  a  parallel  to  this  vision  the  record  of  the  in- 
stallation of  a  priest  of  Nebo  at  Borsippa.  It  is  found  in  a  black  stone  tablet, 
6x8^  in.  in  dimensions,  containing  an  inscription  of  a  hundred  lines.  This 
inscription  is  to  the  effect  that  the  goddess  Nana  and  the  god  Ae  have,  in  their 
good  pleasure,  inducted  Nabu-mutakkil,  son  of  Aplu-etir,  into  the  sanctuary 
of  Nebo  at  Borsippa,  and  granted  him  a  share  in  the  revenues  of  the  temple 
of  Ezida,  and,  "that  the  appointment  may  not  be  contested,  have  sealed  the 
same  and  delivered  it  to  him  forever."  Sellin  further  reports  that  there  arc 
engraved  on  the  tablet  the  figures  of  the  gods  who  protect  the  same  from  vio- 
lation, and,  among  these  pictures,  "  in  the  middle  of  the  narrow  upper  edge,  the 
seven  eyes,  evidently  a  representation  of  the  seven  planets,  including  the  moon 
and  the  sun."  He  concludes  that  in  this  tablet  "we  ourselves  have  a  stone 
with  seven  eyes  similar  to  that  which  Zechariah  in  the  vision  saw  delivered  to 
Joshua."  The  tablet  is  published  in  Mittheilimgen  der  deutschen  Orient-Gesell- 
schafl,  Jan. -Mar.,  1900.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  figures  described 
were  intended  to  represent  seven  heavenly  bodies,  but  they  are  not  in  the  shape 
of  eyes,  the  first  being  plainly  a  circle  and  the  third  a  star  inscribed  in  a  circle. 


3"-"  159 

It  is  hardly  safe,  therefore,  to  identify  them  with  the  eyes  Zechariah  had  in 
mind,  especially  since,  as  the  next  clause  implies,  the  stone  in  question  was  yet 
to  be  engraved. 

On  the  supposition  that  the  stone  delivered  to  Joshua  was  in- 
tended for  the  ornamentation  of  his  ofScial  costume,  there  are  one 
or  two  other  points  that  should  be  mentioned.  In  the  first  place, 
the  inscription  on  the  stone  would  hardly  be  the  name  of  either  of 
the  Jewish  leaders,  but  the  name  of  Yahweh,  or  the  "Holy  to 
Yahweh"  of  later  times,  or  something  similarly  appropriate. 
Note,  however,  secondly,  that,  while  the  stone  has  been  provided, 
it  seems,  when  delivered,  not  to  have  been  engraved ;  which  prob- 
ably means  that,  although  Joshua  is  the  chosen  head  of  the  relig- 
ious establishment  at  Jerusalem,  he  has  not  entered  into  complete 
possession  of  his  office,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  as  yet  no  temple 
to  Yahweh,  Meanwhile, — and  this  would  be  a  strong  argument 
for  the  speedy  completion  of  the  sanctuary, — the  land  was  still  suf- 
fering for  its  iniquity.  Cf.  Hg.  i^  2".  When  the  temple  is  fin- 
ished the  curse  can,  and  will,  be  removed  in  one  day. — 10.  The 
iniquity  of  the  land  is,  of  course,  the  iniquity  of  the  people  who  in- 
habit it,  inherited  in  part  from  their  fathers  and  augmented  by 
their  o\vn  neglect  of  the  obvious  duty  of  rebuilding  the  temple,  on 
account  of  which  the  land  was  cursed  with  drought  and  unfruit- 
fulness.  Cf.  8^".  When  the  people,  in  response  to  the  appeal  of 
Haggai,  laid  the  foundation  of  the  new  structure,  he  promised  them 
the  favour  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Hg.  2^^.  Zechariah  repeats  this 
promise  in  8'^  ^•.  He  could  not,  however,  guarantee  the  entire 
removal  of  their  guilt  until  the  sanctuary  was  completed.  On  tJiat 
day,  that  is,  from  that  day  onward,  they  may  expect  the  continu- 
ous blessing  of  Yahweh.  The  Hebrews  pictured  this  happy  con- 
dition as  one  in  which  every  one  would  sit  "under  his  own  vine 
and  fig  tree."  Cf.  i  K.  4'^  Mi.  4^.  Zechariah  enlarges  the  figure 
by  adding  a  touch  which  shows  that,  as  will  later  become  more 
apparent,  he  was  as  much  interested  in  the  social  as  in  the  eco- 
nomic condition  of  the  community.  In  the  good  time  coming  he 
says  his  people  will  invite  every  one  his  neighbour  ufider  the  vine 
and  under  the  fig  tree.  This  idyllic  condition  is  more  fully  de- 
scribed in  ch.  8, 


l6o  ZECHARIAH 

A  good  example  of  the  method  used  by  the  older  commentators  is  seen  in 
Stonard's  note  on  this  verse,  in  which  he  finds  an  intimation  of  "the  strenu- 
ous endeavours  of  the  apostles  and  other  primitive  Christians  to  convert  the 
heathen  world.  .  .  .  They  are  here  figured,  while  resting  in  the  tranquillity 
and  plenteousness  of  evangelical  peace  and  blessing,  as  calling  to  all  the  way- 
faring men  who  needed  such  refreshment  in  the  journey  through  life  to  par- 
take with  them  in  their  ease  and  comfort  in  the  meat  and  drink  that  endure 
unto  everlasting  life." 

7.  riN^i]  g>-^  om. — The  accentuation  requires  that  the  ajwdosis  of 
the  conditional  sentence  begin  with  \irji.  This  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Jewish  interpretation  of  the  verse,  according  to  which  the  final  clause  is  a 
promise  for  the  future  life.  So  Ki.;  also  Or.,  who,  since  he  does  not  fol- 
low the  Jewish  interpretation,  should,  with  B  #  and  most  modern  exe- 
getes,  place  the  main  pause  after  the  first  lou'.i.  <g  divides  the  verse 
after  \i''3  and  reads  dji  as  if  it  were  dni,  thus  wresting  asunder  two  par- 
allel clauses  and  making  a  second  conditional  sentence. — D^jSnr:]  Those 
who  render  the  word  concretely  explain  it  as  an  Aramaised  form  of  the 
prtc.  Hiph.  So  Bo.  ^  ""'•  ^i  Ko.  '•  "^  If,  however,  the  prophet  had 
wished  to  use  the  causative  of  I'l'n,  he  would  naturally  have  employed 
the  regular  form  here,  as  he  does  in  5'";  and  if  he  had  sought  an  intran- 
sitive form,  he  would  have  found  the  Pi.  or  the  Hithp.  ready  to  his  hand. 
Cf.  Ec.  4*',  etc.  Ols.  ^  ^i"*  derives  the  word  from  a  supposed  noun  '^Snr. 
So,  also,  Ew.,  Koh.,  Wri.,  Lowe,  et  al.  This  conjecture  takes  for  granted 
the  correctness  of  the  vocalisation.  If  that  be  ignored,  there  is  no  diffi- 
culty in  connecting  the  given  form  with  "i";^,^  which  actually  occurs  in 
the  required  sense.  Cf.  Jon.  3'  '•  Ez.  42^  The  pi.,  however,  would  be 
Do'j'nn.  So  Sta.  ^  "*•  ';  Ges.  ^  ".  3.  R.  \  So,  also,  Marck,  Houb.,  Pli., 
Klie.,  Pres.,  Brd.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit,  et  al. — 8.  The  accentuation 
would  require  that  nns<  and  T'i'i  be  construed  as  vocatives,  and  the  fol- 
lowing •'3  seems  to  reinforce  this  requirement.  So  ^  U  &  JE.  Since, 
however,  as  has  been  shown,  there  is  no  ground  for  supposing  the  prophet 
to  have  thought  of  Joshua  as  accompanied  by  other  priests,  '3  is  prob- 
ably a  dittog.,  and  Tj:">i  ^•i!<  are  pendent  subjects  and  the  antecedents  of 
n::<7^.  This  pronoun  should  properly  be  in  the  2d  pers., — and  &  has  this 
reading, — but  the  use  of  the  third  for  the  second  is  sufficiently  attested  to 
warrant  its  retention  in  this  instance.  Cf.  Mi.  1=  3',  but  especially  Zp. 
2";  Ko.  §"'«■'';  Dr.  ^  "'•  °''^-  '. — ncx — •<3'].  On  the  genuineness  of 
this  clause,  see  the  comments.  It  is  interesting,  in  view  of  the  rendering 
given  to  nnx  in  ^  CB  &,  that  the  root  from  which  it  comes  in  Syr.  means 
shine.  21  simply  substitutes  Nn^rs.  On  the  accentuation  of  the  word, 
see  Ges.  h  "•  *  '">  ^■. — 9.  The  accentuation  makes  v."  a  compound  nom- 
inal sentence,  and  it  has  oftenest  been  so  treated.  So  the  Vrss.,  Dru., 
de  D  ,  Marck,  Hd.,  Koh.,  Wri.,  et  al.  If,  however,  the  seven  eyes  are 
seven  facets,  as  above  argued,  the  mention  of  them  is  of  so  little  impor- 


.i-6aa.  iob-14  rfir 

tance  in  comparison  witli  the  announcement  that  follows,  that  it  should  be 
thrown  into  a  parenthesis.  So  New.,  Ew.,  Ke.,  Pres.,  Or.,  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  ei  al.  The  absence  of  the  connective  before  'jjn  favours  this 
arrangement. — o^j^y]  The  du.  for  the  pi.  Cf.  Ges.  %  «8-  «•  ^-  On  the 
gender,  see  Ges.  ^  '2''-  ^-  ''">.  Here  it  seems  to  be  masc;  also  4'". — 
^nrci]  Oi,  nal  i/'T?\a</)^(rw,  fe  .  a.wV/-,|/->  as  if  from  K'tt'a,  touch,  examine. — 
]1>']  ^  prefixes  -waaav  =  S3. — nnx]  &,  ©oi  =  Ninn. — 10.  Ninn  ora] 
This  expression  seems  to  Marti  to  betray  a  late  hand ;  but  it  was  common 
in  the  literature  with  which  Zechariah  was  familiar.  Cf.  Is.  4'  Je.  4' 
Ez.  24-'.  Moreover,  it  introduces  a  description  of  the  good  time  fore- 
seen entirely  in  accord  with  ideas  of  Zechariah.     Cf.  8''. 


(2)    THE   SYMBOLICAL  CANDELABRUM   (4**^^"'  ^^^^*). 

The  fourth  chapter,  in  its  present  arrangement,  does  not  admit 
of  analysis,  but,  if  vv.  ^^^-i"-  ^^  i^g  removed,  there  remains  a  simple 
and  coherent  account  of  the  fifth  of  Zechariah's  visions.  In  it  he 
sees  a  lamp  with  seven  lights,  flanked  by  two  olive  trees,  and  re- 
ceives from  his  attendant  an  interpretation  of  the  things  thus  pre- 
sented. 

1 .  The  prophet  gives  his  readers  to  understand  that  there  was  an 
interval  between  the  fourth  vision  and  the  one  about  to  be  de- 
scribed, during  which  he  fell  into  a  state  of  unconsciousness  to  his 
surroundings.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  case,  also,  to  some 
extent,  after  each  of  the  first  three  visions;  for,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, he  had  to  concentrate  his  attention  upon,  or  have  it  directed 
toward,  each  new  vision.  Cf.  2^-  ^-  '  3^  The  terms  here  used 
confirm  one  in  such  an  inference.  Then,  he  says,  the  angel  tlmt 
was  speaking  with  me  again  (lit.,  returned  and)  roused  me,  that  is, 
for  a  second,  if  not  for  a  fourth  time.  Not  that  he  was  asleep,  as 
Aben  Ezra  and  others  explain ;  the  comparison  he  employs,  like  a 
tnan  that  is  roused  from  sleep,  forbids  such  an  interpretation.  Per- 
haps he  would  have  said  that  he  had  fallen  into  a  reverie  over  the 
things  previously  revealed.  Be  that  as  it  may,  he  was  thoroughly 
alert,  as  his  questions  are  calculated  to  show,  when  the  interpreter 
addressed  him. — 2.  In  the  preceding  visions  the  prophet,  when  he 
has  spoken  at  all,  has  opened  the  conversation.  This  time  the 
interpreter  is  represented  as  stimulating  his  curiosity  by  asking, 


l62  ZECHARIAH 

Wliat  seest  thou?  In  reply  the  prophet  describes  a  tamp,  or,  more 
precisely,  a  candelabrum.  It  is  all  gold  and  has  a  bowl  for  oil  at 
its  top,  that  is,  at  the  top  of  the  upright  shaft  that  supports  the  whole 
structure.  There  are  seven  lights  on  it.  The  prophet  does  not 
say  how  these  lights  are  arranged,  but  it  is  clear  that  they  could 
not  have  been  placed  in  a  single  row,  like  those  of  the  candelabrum 
described  in  Ex.  25^^  ^-j  without  crowding  the  bowl  out  of  position.* 
The  simplest  and  most  natural  arrangement  would  be  that  in  a 
circle  about  the  bowl,  on  arms  of  equal  length  branching  at  regu- 
lar intervals  from  the  central  shaft,  and  this  is  probably  the  one 
that  the  prophet  had  in  mind,  since  he  seems  to  have  thought  of 
the  lamp  as  shedding  its  rays,  not,  like  that  of  the  tabernacle,  in 
only  one  direction,  but  toward  all  the  points  of  the  compass.  Cf. 
V.  ^"^  Ex.  40^^  The  lights  themselves  must  have  been  very  simple, — 
small,  shallow  vessels  of  the  shell  shape  still  seen  in  Palestine, — with 
a  more  or  less  developed  lip  at  the  narrower,  outer  end,  from  which 
the  vidck  projected.  The  lights  of  the  candelabrum  of  the  taber- 
nacle were  individual  receptacles  for  the  oil  they  burned.  The 
one  that  Zechariah  saw  had  seven  pipes  for  the  bowl  at  its  top,  by 
which  this  reservoir  was  connected  with  the  seven  encircling  lights, 
and  these  pipes  were  independent  of  the  arms  on  which  the  lights 
were  supported. — 3.  Finally,  there  were  two  olive  trees  by  it,  not, 
as  in  the  Massoretic  text,  by  the  bowl,  for  the  purpose  of  supplying 
it  with  oil,  as  the  later  author  who  inserted  v.  '^  also  teaches, — 
an  interpretation  forbidden  by  w.  ^°''-  ", — but,  as  in  v.  ",  by  the 
candelabrum,  one  on  the  right  of  the  lamp,  and  07ie  on  the  left  of  it. 
It  does  not  appear  whether  these  trees,  also,  were  made  of  gold  or 
not.  In  any  case,  they  were  probably  but  diminutive  images  of 
the  things  they  were  intended  to  represent;  for  it  would  not  have 
done  to  make  them  overtop  the  candelabrum,  as  they  do  in  Wright's 
picture.    Cf.  v.  ". 

4.  The  vision,  as  just  explained,  makes  a  simple  and  intelligible 
picture.  The  object  of  the  prophet,  however,  was  not  to  enter- 
tain, but  to  instruct.  Hence  he  represents  himself  as  saying  to  the 
interpreter,  Sir,  what  are  these?  not  the  olive  trees  only,  but  the 
various  features  of  the  vision.     What  do  they  mean  ? — 5.  Hith- 

*  See  Wright,  who  places  the  bowl  on  aa  arm  extending  backward  from  the  top  of  the  shaft. 


erto  the  interpreter  has  always  responded  at  once  to  the  prophet's 
desire  for  information.  This  time  he  delays  his  answer,  thus  in- 
creasing the  suspense,  by  himself  asking  a  question  which  perhaps 
implies  that  the  prophet  should  have  been  able  to  discover  the 
meaning  of  the  vision  without  assistance,  Knowest  thou  not  what 
these  are?  But  the  prophet  protests  his  ignorance. — 6*'^.  Then 
he,  the  interpreter,  answered  and  said.  These  words  should  in- 
troduce the  explanation  desired  by  the  prophet.  What  follows 
is  not  such  an  explanation.  In  fact,  it  has  no  apparent  connection 
with  the  vision,  but  is  a  more  direct  and  explicit  message  on  a  dif- 
ferent subject,  received  under  entirely  different  conditions.  On 
the  first  point  note  the  expression,  "the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to 
me,"  in  v.  ^,  which  is  regularly  used  to  introduce  messages  outside 
the  \nsions.  Cf.  6®  7^  8^-  ^^.  On  the  second  observe  that,  while 
this  vision  was  evidently  intended  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  both 
the  governor  and  the  high  priest,  in  vv.  ^^^-loa  j-j^g  former  com- 
pletely eclipses  the  latter.  On  the  omitted  verses,  see  pp.  190  ff. 
— 10b.  The  reply  of  the  interpreter  is  not  lost.  It  is  contained,  as 
was  suggested  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  in  the  latter  half  of 
this  verse  in  the  words,  These  seven  are  the  eyes  of  Yahweh  wan- 
dering through  the  earth.  The  seven  to  which  the  interpreter  re- 
fers are,  of  course,  the  seven  lights  on  the  candelabrum.  They  take 
the  place  of  the  horsemen  on  "horses  bay,  chestnut  and  white" 
"sent  to  traverse  the  earth,"  that  appear  in  the  first  vision,  i^*^-, 
symbolising,  like  them,  the  omniscience  of  Yahweh.  Philo  i}Vho 
is  the  heir  of  divine  things?  xlv.)  and  Josephus  {Ant.,  iii,  6,  7;  7,  7; 
Wars,  V,  5,  5)  saw  in  the  lights  of  the  candelabrum  in  the  temple 
symbols  of  the  planets,  including  the  sun  and  the  moon.  Gunkel 
and  others  adopt  this  view,  finding  here  another  instance  of  the 
same  symbolism  and  in  both  evidence  of  the  dependence  of  the 
Hebrews  on  the  Babylonians*  The  difference  between  them, 
they  say,  reflects  a  variation,  otherwise  well  attested,  in  the  rank 
of  the  planets  in  the  Babylonian  system ;  the  sun  sometimes  being 
placed  in  the  middle,  and  sometimes  at  the  beginning,  of  the  list.f 
Now,  it  may  well  be  that  the  candelabrum  with  seven  branches 
had  its  origin  as  a  symbolical  representation  of  the  planets  in  Baby- 

*  Gunkel,  Schdpjung  unci  Chaos,  130.  t  Ibid.,  127. 


1 64  ZECHARIAH 

Ionia, — the  fact  that  it  did  not  appear  among  the  Hebrews  until 
after  the  Exile*  seems  to  favour  that  opinion; — but  it  does  not  by 
any  means  follow  that,  when  they  borrowed  it,  they  adopted  with  it 
the  ideas  that  it  had  previously  represented.  A  hint  of  the  con- 
trary may  be  found  in  the  place  they  gave  it  in  the  temple,  among 
the  furniture  of  the  ante-chamber  of  their  Deity.  Cj.  Ex.  40^^^-. 
Note,  also,  that  Zechariah's  candelabrum  represents,  not  a  multi- 
ple subject,  but  a  single  personality  in  the  manifold  exercise  of  one 
of  his  attributes.  It  is  therefore  probable  that,  if  the  prophet  was 
conscious  of  using  a  symbol  for  the  planets,  he  thought  of  them  as 
objects  or  powers  subordinate  to,  and  dependent  on,  Yahweh, 
the  God  of  Gods.  He  certainly  gives  no  hint  of  their  rank  as  re- 
lated to  one  another,  for,  as  has  been  shown,  he  must  have  thought 
of  the  lights  as  forming,  not,  as  Gunkel  seems  to  suppose,  a  single 
line,  but  a  circle  about  the  main  shaft. 

11.  The  interpreter  has  thus  far  confined  himself  to  the  candela- 
brum. The  olive  trees  on  either  side  of  it  remain  to  be  explained. 
The  prophet  therefore  asks.  What  are  these  two  olive  trees  on  the 
right  of  the  lamp  and  on  the  left? — ^12.  A  reply  should  follow  at 
once,  as  in  the  case  of  the  first  question,  even  if  the  desired  in- 
formation be  delayed.  In  its  place  the  Massoretic  text  has  a  sec- 
ond question  by  the  prophet  containing  elements  not  in  the  de- 
scription of  vv.  ^  ^•.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  two  branches  of 
the  olive  trees  to  which  special  attention  is  directed.  The  intro- 
duction of  this  detail,  in  itself,  is  enough  to  excite  suspicion  with 
reference  to  the  genuineness  of  the  passage.  This  suspicion  is 
confirmed  by  the  evident  divergence  in  thought  between  it  and 
the  context.  The  interpolation  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by 
a  mistake  concerning  the  olive  trees.  In  v.  "  they  are  called  "sons 
of  oil."  The  author  of  this  verse,  either  ignoring  the  prophet's 
own  explanation,  or  misunderstanding  it,  apparently  took  these 
trees  for  the  sources  of  the  oil  for  the  lights  of  the  candelabrum. 
Then,  seeing  that  there  was  no  connection  between  them  and  the 
lamp,  he  remedied  this  supposed  oversight  by  describing  two 
branches,  one  from  each  of  the  trees,  as  field  by,  lit.,  in  the  hand  of, 

•  In  Solomon's  temple  the  Holy  Place  was  lighted  hy  ten  separate  and  independent  lamps. 
CI.  I  K.  7". 


^l-6aa.    lOb.U  j5^ 

the  two  golden  spouts  that  discharge  into  the  golden  howl.  The  re- 
sult is  a  completely  automatic  contrivance  which  probably  seemed 
to  the  glossator  a  great  improvement  on  the  original,  but  which,  as 
will  appear,  really  reverses  the  thought  that  Zechariah  intended 
to  illustrate. — 13.  This  verse  is  the  proper  and  natural  continua- 
tion of  V.  ",  corresponding,  except  in  the  introductory  clause,  to 
V.  ^.  On  the  text,  see  the  critical  notes. — 14.  The  prophet  hav- 
ing again  protested  his  ignorance,  the  interpreter  proceeds  to  ex- 
plain the  significance  of  the  two  olive  trees.  These  trees,  then, 
are  symbolical,  as  well  as  the  lamp.  The  interpreter  says,  literally, 
that  they  are  sons  of  oil.  This  expression  belongs  to  a  class  of 
orientalisms  frequent  in  the  Bible.  See  "son  of  might,"  i  K.  14^^, 
"sons  of  tumult,"  Je.  48^^,  etc.  In  these  cases  the  person  or  thing 
in  question  is  conceived  as  an  example  of  the  state  or  quality  de- 
noted by  the  dependent  noun,  the  "son  of  might"  being  simply  a 
mighty  man,  etc.  In  Is.  5*  a  hill  is  called  a  "son  of  fatness," 
doubtless  because  it  was  peculiarly  fertile.  The  phrase  sons  of 
oil,  therefore,  would  naturally  mean  producers  of  oil;  but  a  He- 
brew could  use  it  of  any  thing  or  person  with  which  or  whom  oil 
was  associated  in  his  mind.  In  this  case  it  refers  to  persons  con- 
secrated, as  kings  and  priests  were  among  the  Hebrews,  to  the  exe- 
cution of  high  functions  by  being  anointed  with  oil.  The  inter- 
preter does  not  tell  Zechariah  who  these  two  anointed  ones  are, 
but  the  prophet  had  no  difficulty  in  identifying  them.  Nor  has  the 
modern  reader.  The  fact  that  there  are  two  immediately  sug- 
gests the  names  of  Zerubbabel,  the  hereditary  prince,  and  Joshua, 
the  hereditary  high  priest,  both  of  whom  had  been,  or  were  to  be, 
anointed  for  their  offices.*  The  descriptive  clause,  also,  fits  them, 
for  in  3^,  it  will  be  remembered,  Joshua  was  promised  access  to 
the  immediate  presence  of  Yahweh,  and  certainly  Zechariah  did 
not  regard  Zerubabbel  as  any  less  worthy  of  the  divine  favour. 
Cf.  vv.  ''•  ^  Hg.  2^^.  The  olive  trees,  then,  symbolise  the  associated 
leaders,  and  their  position  on  either  side  of  the  lamp  with  its  seven 
lights  means  that  they  enjoy  the  special  favour,  protection  and 

*  Mention  should  be  made  of  the  interpretation  adopted  by  Baumgarten  and  a  few  others, 
according  to  which  these  two  sons  of  oil  are  the  prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  since  it  ap- 
pears to  be  the  basis  of  the  allusion  to  the  olive  trees  in  Rev.  ii'^-. 


l66  ZECHARTAH 

assistance  of  Yahweh,  to  whom  is  here  ascribed  omnipotence  as 
well  as  omniscience.  The  effect  of  such  teaching  can  easily  be 
imagined.  It  must  have  greatly  encouraged  the  leaders  themselves 
and  greatly  increased  their  influence  with  their  followers,  thus 
doubly  affecting  the  enterprise  then  in  progress,  the  restoration  of 
the  national  sanctuary. 


1.  ar^]  On  the  adverbial  use  of  this  vb.,  see  Ges.  5  "o-  «  (a), — 2.  icn^i] 
So  (B'^Q.  An  evident  mistake.  Qr.,  with  a  multitude  of  mss.,  ncNi.  So 
(gNBi  -j^  ^  2J_ — muD]  The  constr.  before  a  dependent  nominal  sentence. 
Cf.  Ges.  ^  ''<•  (^). — nSj]  This  form  has  been  derived  from  a  hypothetical  Sj 
=  n'jj.  So  Ki.,  Mau.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  et  al.;  but,  since  "^i  does  not  occur,  and 
nhi  does,  not  only  in  v.  ^,  but  in  Ec.  126,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  a 
form  of  the  latter  was  intended.  The  fact  that  (§  g>  neglect  the  sf.,  which, 
moreover,  is  not  essential,  favours  the  conjecture  that  the  original  read- 
ing was  rhi.  So  Ew.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  et  al.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  91.  i.  k.  2^ 
On  the  other  hand  it  should  be  noted  that,  while  to  the  occidental  ear 
the  sf.  sounds  superfluous,  the  Hebrews,  as  a  precisely  similar  passage 
(Ex.  253'  ff)  teaches,  preferred  to  use  it.  It  is  therefore  better,  with 
U  (T,  to  follow  the  Massoretic  tradition  that  the  prophet  meant  to  say 
its  bowl,  but  there  is  no  reason  for  perpetuating  the  reading  nSj,  which 
is  probably  a  scribal  error  for  nnSj. — The  adoption  of  the  reading  just 
suggested  requires  the  retention  of  the  sf.  of  n^nnj,  which  is  reproduced 
in  B  21,  but  neglected  by  05  &  and  therefore  omitted  by  modern  critics. 
So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — It  requires,  also,  that  mpx>n  be  made  defi- 
nite, i.  e.,  that  nip^cio  nyari  be  changed  to  mpxiDn  pari  in  accord- 
ance with  the  law  for  numerals.  Cf.  Ges.  5  "•  '. — Thus  far  no  essential 
change  has  been  made  in  the  text,  but  now  it  becomes  necessary  to  do 
something  with  nyau'".  This  word  has  caused  "great  searchings  of 
heart"  among  the  commentators.  Thus  Koh.  renders  nyac'i  nyar/owr- 
teen  and  explains  this  number  as  meaning  that  the  lights  were  connected 
with  the  reservoir  by  seven  of  the  pipes,  one  for  each,  and  with  one  an- 
other by  the  other  seven.  This  interpretation  is  rejected  by  Ke.,  who 
shows  that,  in  2  S.  21^"  =  1  Ch.  2o»,  on  which  it  is  based,  the  numerals 
should  be  taken  distributively.  Ston.  cites  in  support  of  it  i  K.  8", 
where,  however,  as  appears  from  <5,  and  indeed  from  v.  ",  the  words 
"and  seven  days,  even  fourteen  days,"  are  an  addition  to  the  original 
text.  Ke.  says  that  a  lamp  constructed  on  Koh.'s  plan  would  be  "a 
wonderful  and  useless  contrivance,"  but  what  should  be  said  of  one  with 
seven  pipes  from  the  central  reservoir  to  each  of  the  surrounding  lights, 
as  required  by  the  critic's  own  exegesis?  Yet  this  interpretation  is 
adopted  by  Ra.,  Ki.,  Mau.,  Klie.,  Pu.,  Lowe,  et  al.,  and  followed  in  RV. 


To  avoid  it  Hi.  omits  ny3U'»,  and  makes  njjor*  a  predicate  adj.  after 
n^mj.  So  Wellhausen.  This  is,  in  itself,  a  permissible  construction, 
but  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  prophet,  if  he  meant  to  say  what  Hi.  at- 
tributes to  him,  would  have  brought  the  numerals  in  the  two  clauses  into 
so  ambiguous  proximity.  This  objection  applies  also  to  the  view  of  Pres. , 
that  nj;3B'2  is  but  an  emphatic  repetition  of  nyar'.  A  better  method  of 
emendation,  and  one  by  which  such  objections  can  be  avoided,  is,  with 
C6  "B,  to  omit  the  second  nyiU',  leaving  the  first  and  third  as  attributives 
before  their  respective  nouns.  So  Rib.,  AV.,  Dathe,  Houb.,  Ew.,  Hd., 
Or.,  Reu.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  van  H.,  et  al.  New.,  following  (gcomp. 
#,  would  insert  the  numeral  before  nnj;  but  this  is  forbidden,  since 
r^■^i^,  if  the  relative  clause  that  follows  is  genuine,  is  an  error  for  nSjS. — 
van  H.  inserts  7\'^i^  p  after  nnjS. — 3.  nSjn  r::^cj  This  can  hardly  be  the 
original  reading,  which  must  have  been  either  munn  j>c^n  or  simply 
nrn^D.  The  change  was  probably  made  when  v.  '^  was  inserted. — 4. 
IPNi]  On  the  form,  see  Ges.  ^^  "•  *  <6):  vs.  e.  R.  3  co.  (|^  /cai  iirrjpuTijffa 
=  Snu'xi.— 5.  •'Sn]  (gA  om.;  <S«<bQ  add  \^yuv.—r^::n]  Cf.  i'.— 6aa. 
?j:m]  &  om. — ">2nS]  &  om. — 6a^-10a.  The  view  that  these  verses  are 
foreign  to  this  connection,  suggested  by  We.,  is  adopted  by  Now.,  Marti, 
GASm.,  Sellin,  Kit.  All  agree  that  the  passage  is  from  the  hand  of  Zecha- 
riah,  but  Smith  thinks  it  is  somewhat  earlier,  Sellin  that  it  is  somewhat 
later,  than  the  context.  For  details  concerning  the  text,  see  pp.  193  /. 
— 10b.  The  punctuation  of  M  makes  nVx  njrju'  the  subject  of  incB'i 
1N-11,  leaving  the  first  clause  of  the  verse  without  a  proper  apodosis. 
This  division  is  rejected,  not  only  by  ®  U  &,  but  by  ul  and  the  leading 
Jewish  commentators,  who  connect  these  words  with  what  follows.  So, 
also,  Cal.,  Grot.,  Pem.,  Dathe,  Lowth,  New,,  Theiner,  Ew.,  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  et  al. — cociu-c]  The  change  in  the  punctuation  required  by  the 
sense  makes  this  word  an  adverbial  ace,  which  does  not  need  the  art. 
Cf.  Nu.  i627  I  S.  2'8,  etc.;  Ges.  ^  "s-  8  (6). — ^y;]  Masc,  as  in  3'.— nin>] 
(Sfi  om. — 12.  li'Ni]  Cf.  v.  *. — r'jr]  An  editorial  device  to  introduce  an 
addition  to  the  text. — TC'-nn]  The  u  raphe  with  the  silent  shewa.  Cf. 
Jon.  4'i;Baer,  Notes,  82;  Ko.  "■  ^o;  t — >S3r]  Fem.,  with  a  masc.  termi- 
nation, while  nnnjs  is  masc,  with  a  fem.  termination.  a^p^-\D  is  there- 
fore properly  construed  by  (5  &  (U  with  the  latter. — mi.-ijx]  05  iirap- 
v<TTplSas=^'^p:i^Jil  H,  rostra;  ^  — .•■j^.^mJ;  ®,  pa^ipoN;  but  its  connection 
with  "lUX,  pipe,  is  too  obvious  to  be  mistaken. — ^^'!^]  The  favourite  in- 
terpretation for  this  word  is  that  it  is  used  by  metonymy  for  jcu",  oil.  So, 
following  the  Jewish  authorities,  Dru.,  Pem.,  Marck,  Bla.,  Hi.,  Ke., 
Pres.,  Wri.,  Lowe,  Or.,  GASm.,  et  al.  Others  take  the  word  literally: 
Klie,,  e.  g.,  who  says,  "The  lamp  itself  is  represented  as  arising,  develop- 
ing and  growing,  and  the  gold  from  which  it  develops  and  grows  flows  to 
it  through  the  spouts,"  etc.  It  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the  object  of  the 
interpolator  to  perceive  that  something  is  wanting  and  arrive  at  a  pretty 


l68  ZECHARIAH 

safe  conjecture  concerning  the  words  to  be  supplied.  Now,  the  object 
was  to  connect  the  lights  with  the  olive  trees,  and,  since  this  could  only  be 
done  through  the  bowl,  it  is  necessary  that  this  receptacle  be  mentioned. 
The  original  reading,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been,  not  that  of  ul,  (oil) 
into  the  lamps  of  gold  =  antn  rnj  Vs  {\T.t),  but  {oil)  into  the  golden 
howl=  antn  r'-j  Sn  (icr).  Van  H.  prefers  3 nin  ^^?^^■zS  -\nx-.n.— 13.  -\cn''] 
Om.,  with  <g  &,  as  in  v.  2.— nc]  Some  (9)  mss.  add  nm,  as  in  v.  '.— 
14.  -insM]  Add,  with  &,  ^"^n  as  in  v.  ^ 

c.     The  seat  oj  wickedness  (5^-6^). 

The  third  and  final  group,  like  the  first,  consists  of  three  visions. 
They  have  to  do  with  the  subject  of  sin  and  the  purpose  of  Yahweh 
concerning  it.     The  first  is  that  of 


(l)   THE   FLYING   ROLL    (5*"*). 

In  this  vision  the  prophet  sees  a  flying  roll  of  which  he  asks  the  sig- 
nificance. Whereupon  the  interpreter  explains  to  him  that  it  is 
a  curse  sent  forth  by  Yahweh  to  exterminate  the  thief  and  the  per- 
jurer from  the  land. 

1.  When,  after  the  usual  interval,  the  prophet  again  lifted  up 
his  eyes  and  looked,  he  saw  a  flying  roll.  It  was  what  is  elsewhere 
in  the  Old  Testament  called  "a  roll  of  a  book,"  or  simply  a  "book." 
Cf.  Je.  36^  ^•.  It  was  open,— for  in  v. '  the  prophet  gives,  not  only 
its  width,  but  its  length, — presenting,  as  it  passed  through  the  air, 
the  appearance  of  a  great  sheet  of  leather.  There  was  writing  on 
it,  too,  otherwise  it  could  hardly  have  had  the  meaning  attributed 
to  it  by  the  interpreter;  but  whether,  like  the  symbolical  book  that 
Ezekiel  ate,  "it  was  written  within  and  without,"  there  is  no  means 
of  determining. — 2.  In  answer  to  the  usual  question,  WJiat  seest 
thou  ?  the  prophet  further  describes  the  roll  by  giving  its  apparent 
dimensions;  whose  length  is  twenty  cubits  and  its  width  ten  cubits, 
or,  roughly  speaking,  thirty  by  fifteen  feet.  These  figures  are  the 
same  as  those  for  the  area  of  the  porch  of  Solomon's  temple.  Cf. 
1  K.  6'.  Hence,  some  of  the  commentators,  Christian  as  well  as 
Jewish,  have  supposed  that  they  were  intended  to  recall  that 
structure  and  through  it  teach  an  important  religious  lesson;  but, 


5»-*  169 

unfortunately,  the  most  ingenious  among  them  has  not  been  able 
to  furnish  an  interpretation  that  is  sufficiently  obvious  to  commend 
itself  to  any  one  but  the  inventor.  It  is  therefore  hardly  probable 
that  Zechariah  had  the  porch  of  the  temple  in  mind  when  he  wrote 
this  description,  or,  if  he  had,  that  he  adopted  its  dimensions  for 
any  other  reason  than  that  they  appealed  to  him  as  a  sort  of  stand- 
ard for  size  and  proportion.  The  Holy  Place  in  the  tabernacle, 
it  will  be  remembered,  had  the  same  dimensions.  CJ.  Ex.  26^  ^•.* 
— 3.  The  interpreter,  without  waiting  to  be  requested  so  to  do,  now 
explains  to  his  charge  the  meaning  of  the  roll.  This,  he  says,  is  the 
curse  that  goeth  forth.  This  explanation,  as  already  intimated,  is 
intelligible  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  roll  contained  more  or 
less  writing.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  about  the  character  of 
its  contents.  Ezekiel  (2")  says  of  the  one  that  appeared  to  him 
that  "there  were  written  therein  lamentation,  mourning  and  woe." 
This  one,  as  Zechariah  conceived  it,  was  doubtless  inscribed  with 
a  curse,  or,  it  may  be,  a  series  of  curses.  Cf.  Dt.  27'^^-.  The 
Hebrews,  as  appears  from  Nu.  5^^^',  attributed  the  most  baleful 
effects  to  such  instrumentalities.!  The  prophet,  taking  advantage 
of  this  superstition,  represents  the  penalty  for  sin  as  an  inscribed 
curse  that  executes  itself  upon  the  offender,  seeking  him  wherever 
he  may  be,  over  the  face  of  the  whole  land.  The  mission  of  the 
curse  marks  a  new  departure  in  the  divine  administration.  Hith- 
erto it  has  apparently  been  too  lenient; /or  every  one  that  siealeth, 
— how  long  now  hath  he  gone  unpunished  ?  The  thief  is  cited  as 
an  example,  and  tlie  one  that  swear eth  falsely  as  another.  These 
two  represent  the  two  great  classes  to  one  or  the  other  of  which 
sinners  may  be  referred,  those  who  have  injured  their  neighbours 
and  those  who  have  dishonoured  their  God.  See  the  two  tables  of 
the  covenant.  None  of  these  has  in  times  past  received  his  just 
deserts,  and,  because  sentence  was  not  speedily  executed,  they  have 
all  been  confirmed  in  their  evil  ways.     Cf.  Ez.  8". 

4.  Thus  far  the  interpreter  has  been  speaking  in  his  own  person. 
He  now  introduces  an  utterance  of  Yahweh  in  which  is  described 

*  It  is  this  sacred  area,  according  to  Ke.,  Klie.,  Brd.,  Wri.,  from  which  the  figures  were 
l)f)rroucd. 

t  The  modem  inhabitants  of  Palestine  have  the  same  fear  of  written  curses.  CJ.  Hanauer, 
Tdles  Told  in  Palesline,   138  /.,  220. 


lyo  ZECHARIAH 

the  fatal  eflfectiveness  of  the  winged  curse.  When  it  comes  to  the 
house  of  one  of  the  offenders  it  shall  abide  in  his  house  and  con- 
sume, i.  e.,  until  it  has  consumed,  it  with  its  wood  and  its  stones. 
The  complete  destruction  of  a  house,  of  course,  implies  the  de- 
struction of  its  inmates.     Cf.  Am.  3^'',* 

In  the  comments  on  v.  ^  it  was  noted  that  the  mission  of  the  curse 
was  a  new  departure  in  the  divine  administration,  and  the  words 
of  the  prophet  were  quoted  to  show  that,  for  one  thing,  the  change 
meant  an  increase  in  severity  toward  sinners.  That,  however,  can 
hardly  be  the  whole  of  the  lesson  that  the  vision  was  intended  to 
teach.  A  hint  of  something  further  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
prophet  represents  the  curse,  not  only  as  commissioned  to  destroy, 
but  as  attacking  the  sinner  in  his  own  house.  The  doctrine  thus 
suggested  is  one  that,  when  Zechariah  was  prophesying,  had  been 
more  or  less  boldly  professed  among  the  Jews  for  at  least  a  hun- 
dred years.  There  had  been  a  time  when  they  could,  and  did, 
believe  that  a  family  or  community  might  justly  be  punished  for 
the  sin  of  any  of  its  members;!  ^^^  ^^.ter  they  first  doubted,  and 
finally  repudiated,  the  doctrine.  J  The  great  problem  of  the  Exile 
was  the  reconciliation  of  the  new  view,  in  its  turn,  with  the  facts  of 
experience.  It  was  during  this  period  that  some  one  sought  to 
comfort  his  fellow-captives  by  making  a  new  application  of  Gn, 
g2i  <"•  "This,"  he  represents  Yahweh  as  saying,  "is  like  the  matter 
of  Noah  to  me;  for,  as  I  swore  that  the  water  of  Noah  should  not 
again  pass  over  the  earth,  so  I  have  sworn  that  I  will  not  (again) 
be  wroth  with  thee  or  rebuke  thee";  that  is,  again  inflict  such  a 
penalty  as  the  one  they  were  then  suffering.  The  prophet  Zech- 
ariah seems  to  have  had  the  same  thought.  The  gist  of  the  teach- 
ing of  the  vision,  therefore,  is  that  Yahweh  will  not  again  punish 
the  Jews  as  a  people  by  any  such  uni\'ersal  calamity  as  the  Exile, 
but  will  henceforth  inflict  upon  each  individual  sinner  the  penalty 
for  his  personal  offences.     In  other  words,  it  is  an  announcement, 

*  The  lesson  of  this  vision  has  a  parallel  in  the  storj'  of  Glaucus  as  told  by  Herodotus  (vi, 
86,  3).  That  story  is  to  the  effect  that,  when  Glaucus  inquired  at  the  Delphian  oracle  whether 
he  might  safely  perjure  himself  to  avoid  restoring  a  sum  of  money  that  had  been  placed  in  his 
keeping,  the  priestess  replied,  "Oath  hath  a  nameless  son,  who,  though  handlcss  and  footless, 
swiftly  pursueth  until,  seizing,  he  dcstroycth  a  whole  race  and  an  entire  house." 

t  CI.  Jos.  7«  "•  2  S.  24>»  «•,  etc. 

X  Cj.  Je.  31"  '■  Ez.  i8>  «■  Dt.  24". 


so  far  as  the  Jews  are  concerned,  of  an  era  of  individualism.     Com- 
pare van  Hoonacker,  who  thinks  the  vision  refers  to  the  past. 

1.  3iB\si]  Cf.  4'.  ^^  om. — rhxd\  05,  here  and  v.  ',  Spiiravop  =  Sjc; 
Aq.  Q,  Si<pdipa;  %,  falcem. — 2.  noy  n'7jc]  Ace.  to  K6.,  ^^'^^  an  object 
clause,  a  roll  flying. — hdn^]  This  idiom  alternates  with  that  without  the 
prep,  in  P.,  i  K.  6/.  and  Ch.,  but  it  is  used  elsewhere  only  here  and  in  Ez. 
4o5-  21  473.  In  Ges.  ^  im-  a-  R-  3  for  "otherwise"  rd.  elsewhere. — 3.  nin 
ni::D]  The  words  are  variously  rendered  by  the  Vrss.,  but  there  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  even  (&  (ews  davdrov)  had  a  text  different  from 
M-  The  meaning  depends  on  the  force  of  npj.  This  vb.  has  usually 
been  regarded  as  a  prophetic  pf.  and  translated  will  be  punished  {(^  U, 
Dru.,  et  al.),  cut  off  (Ki.,  de  D.,  New.,  Mau.,  et  al.),  swept  away  (Pres., 
Or.,  et  al.),  purged  out  (Marck,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Pu.,  Wri.,  et  al.),  etc. 
There  is,  however,  no  warrant  for  such  a  rendering.  The  word  is  a  Niph. 
from  npi,  be  clear  ($,  jai),  and  since  to  say  that  the  thief  and  the  per- 
jurer shall  go  unpunished  (Lu.)  would  evidently  not  be  the  prophet's 
idea,  the  only  alternative  is  to  translate,  with  Ra.,  hath  gone  unpun- 
ished.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  Houb.  rds.opj.  If,  however,  the  vb.,  as 
a  proper  pf.,  refers  to  the  past,  there  is  ground  for  the  suspicion  that,  as 
We.,  was  the  first  to  suggest,  niD3  nrc  is  a  corruption  of  np?  nin,  or 
better,  the  nop  nr,  already  how  long,  of  73.  So  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 
i'awjn]  Since,  according  to  the  Law  it  was  not  a  sin  to  swear  (Gn.  22" 
Dt.  10="),  but  only  to  swear  by  other  gods  than  Yahweh,  or  by  him  to  a 
falsehood  (Dt.  613  '■  Lv.  19'^),  it  is  plain  that  the  original  text  must  have 
had  ipu'S  ^cra  here  as  well  as  in  the  next  verse.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti, 
Kit. — nioo2]  (gB  om.;  but  the  omission  is  without  significance. — 4. 
n^nxxin]  Three  mss.  have  ninNxim.  So  (&,  Kal  i^oicro},  but  wTongly,  for  the 
curse  has  already  gone  forth. — riNai]  Pf.  with  1  in  the  sense  of  the  impf. 
after  a  pf.  Cf.  Ges.  h  »2-  *  (a). — ni^^]  With  ^  in  a  toneless  syllable  in- 
stead of  _.  Here  only;  Ges.  5  73.  2.  R.  1.  Dathe  rds.  njS. — mSai]  For 
innSai.     Cf.  Ges.  h  '5.  e.  r.  i9^_pkiij   The  1  is  explicative.     Cf.   Ges. 

i  164.  note  CW 

(2)   THE   WOMAN   IN   THE   EPHAH    (S^"")- 

In  this,  the  seventh  vision,  the  prophet  sees  an  ephah  which, 
when  the  cover  is  lifted,  is  found  to  contain  a  woman  sym- 
bolising wickedness.  She  is  thrust  back  into  the  measure  and 
two  other  women  with  wings  bear  her  away  to  deposit  her  in 
Babylonia. 

5.  This  paragraph  is  sometimes  connected  as  a  supplement,  or 


172  ZECHARIAH 

further  development,  with  the  preceding,  and  the  number  of  vi- 
sions thus  reduced  to  seven.*  Zechariah,  however,  notwithstand- 
ing his  partiality  for  the  perfect  number,  does  not  seem  to  have 
meant  that  it  should  be  so  treated.  If  he  had,  the  interpreter 
would  hardly  be  represented  as  returning  to  the  prophet,  as  if 
after  an  absence,  and,  when  he  came  forth,  reappeared,  command- 
ing his  charge  to  lift  up  his  eyes  and  see,  just  as  at  the  beginning 
of  the  other  visions.  See,  the  angel  says,  what  this  is  tJiat  cometh 
forth,  presents  itself  as  a  new  object  of  attention.  Whence  it  came 
the  prophet  does  not  say,  and  it  seems  idle  to  conjecture.  Cer- 
tainly not,  as  some  have  held,  from  the  temple,  for  at  this  time 
there  was  no  temple. — 6.  The  prophet  does  not  at  once  recognise 
what  it  is  at  which  he  is  looking.  Hence  his  question.  What  is  it  ? 
The  interpreter  is  obliged  to  give  it  a  name.  It  proves  to  be  an 
ephah.  The  ephah,  like  the  bath,  according  to  the  latest  authori- 
ties in  such  matters,  contained  36.44  litres,  that  is,  32.07  English, 
or  38.86  American  quarts.f  A  receptacle  of  this  size  would  hardly 
satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  vision.  It  is  probable,  therefore, 
that  the  prophet  intended  to  represent  the  object  in  question,  not  as 
an  ephah,  but  as  something  of  the  same  cylindrical  shape,  and  not 
noticeably  larger  than  the  familiar  measure.  J  The  text  has  a  sec- 
ond answer  to  the  prophet's  question;  but,  because  it  is  a  second 
answer  and  anticipates,  not  only  the  explanation  in  v.  ^,  but  any 
mention  of  the  woman  to  whom  it  refers,  it  is  clearly  out  of  place 
in  the  present  connection.  It  must  therefore  be  a  gloss  to  v.  -, 
inserted  here  by  a  careless  copyist. — 7.  This  verse  is  not  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  speech  of  the  interpreter.§  If  it  were,  there  would 
be  no  need  of  the  introductory  And  he  said  at  the  beginning  of 
the  next.  Moreover,  it  is  not  properly  explanatory,  but  merely 
descriptive  of  the  ephah  and  its  content.  The  prophet  now  sees 
for  himself  that  the  measure  is  covered  by  a  disk  of  lead.  \\'hen 
this  disk,  whose  weight  is  calculated  to  excite  curiosity,  is  lifted 
enough  to  permit  one  to  look  within,  but  not  so  far  as  to  allow 
anything  to  escape,  it  appears  that  there  is  a  woman,  lit.,  one 

*  So  Ke.,  Klie.,  Wri.,  Or.,  el  al. 

t  Cj.  EB.,  art.  Weights  and  Measures;  Nowack,  Arch.,  202  if. 

t  So  New.,  Ston..  Koh.,  Or.,  et  al. 

§  So  de  D.,  K6h.,  Pres.,  Lowe,  el  al. 


woman,  silting  in  the  ephah*  By  whom  the  lid  was  lifted  the 
prophet  does  not  take  the  trouble  to  inform  the  reader.  It  can 
hardly  have  raised  itself  (Brd.),  but  was  probably  hfted  by  the 
interpreter,  since,  according  to  v.*,  it  was  he  who  put  it  back 
into  its  place. 

8.  This  woman,  the  interpreter  now  explains,  is  Wickedness. 
The  term  is  unmodified,  except  by  the  article,  as  required  by  He- 
brew usage.  This  is  probably  the  reason  the  author  of  the  gloss 
in  V.  "^  felt  moved  to  explain  it.  His  explanation,  however,  is  not 
very  helpful,  the  word  iniquity  being  quite  as  inclusive  as  wicked- 
ness. Those  who  regard  this  vision  as  supplemental  to  the  pre- 
ceding naturally  claim  that  the  prophet  is  here  speaking  of  sin  in 
general,  which  is  to  be  banished  from  Judah,  but  permitted  to 
continue  its  destructive  work  in  Babylonia;  but  this  view  makes 
both  visions  teach  too  nearly  the  same  lesson.  There  is  a  better 
one,  namely,  that  the  prophet  here  has  reference  more  particularly 
to  idolatry.f  It  is  favoured  by  several  considerations:  (i)  Idolatry 
is  a  form  of  wickedness  to  which  the  Hebrews  were  always  ad- 
dicted, and  for  which  they  believed  both  of  their  kingdoms  had  been 
punished,  first  \\ath  minor  calamities,  and  finally  by  overthrow. 
Cf.  Je.  44^"^-  Ez.  23^^-.  (2)  It  was  practised  by  the  inhabitants 
of  Palestine,  including  some  of  the  Jews,  even  after  the  Exile. 
Cf.  Ezr.  9*ff-  Is.  sy^ff-  65^^-  66"  Mai.  2^\  (3)  It  is  frequently 
in  the  Old  Testament  represented  as  the  evU  especially  offensive 
to  Yahweh.  Cf.  Dt.  4^  if^-  i  K.  21-^  ^■,  etc.  (4)  It  is  the  form 
of  offence  that  a  Hebrew  prophet  would  most  naturally  think  of 
banishing.  Cf.  Dt.  4'^  i  S.  26'^  Am.  5^^  f-.  (5)  Ezekiel  foretold 
that  on  their  restoration  his  people  would  be  cleansed  from  it. 
Cf.  33'^^'  37^^^'-  If  Zechariah  actually  had  idolatry  in  mind,  it 
is  easy  to  explain  why  he  represents  it  as  a  woman.  In  so  doing 
he  simply  follows  the  practice  of  the  older  prophets,  who  repeatedly 
denounce  this  offence  under  the  figure  of  prostitution.     Cf.  Ho. 

*  Pressel  thinks  that  the  picture  presented  in  the  vision  as  above  explained  is  an 
"awkward"  one.  He  therefore  suggests  that  this  verse  be  rendered,  "And  lo,  a  hundred- 
weight oj  lead  was  carried,  the  same  being  carried  by  a  woman  who  sat  in  the  ephah."  De 
gustibus,  etc.! 

t  So  Ston.,  Hd.  Jerome  in  his  commentary  uses  the  expression,  "  iniquitas,  quam  alio 
nomine  idolilriam  possumus  appellare  "  ;    but  this  is  probably  an  allusion  to  Col.  3^, 


174  ZECHARIAH 

2^"-  Je.  23^*'-  Ez.  16' ^-j  etc.* — The  woman  here  pictured  is  a 
very  active  figure.  No  sooner  is  the  cover  lifted  from  the  ephah 
than  she  attempts  to  escape.  The  interpreter,  however,  intercepts 
her,  thrusts  her  back  into  the  ephah  and  casts  the  leaden  weight 
upon  its,  not  her,^  mouth. — 9.  When  the  woman  Wickedness  has 
thus  been  securely  imprisoned  in  the  ephah,  the  prophet  sees  two 
more  women  coming  forth.  Much  ingenuity  has  been  expended 
in  attempts  to  discover  their  significance.  The  outcome  is  a  great 
variety  of  opinions,  some  of  which  are  diametrically  opposed  to 
one  another.  Thus,  for  example,  Kohler  finds  in  them  messen- 
gers of  Satan,  Neumann  angels  of  Yahweh.J  They  are  probably 
to  be  regarded  as  the  necessary  adjuncts  of  an  effective  picture. § 
They  have  wings  like  the  wings  of  the  stork,  that  is,  long  and  strong 
ones,  suitable  for  rapid  and  prolonged  flight.  Storks  are  very 
common  in  Palestine.  When  they  are  migrating  they  pass  over 
the  country  by  thousands,  and  during  this  season  the  fields  are 
often  thickly  dotted  with  them.  A  full-grown  stork  of  the  larger, 
and  commoner,  white  variety  measures  more  than  three  and  a  half 
feet  in  length  and  twice  as  much  from  tip  to  tip  of  its  black  wings.** 
Mounting  on  such  wings,  these  two  women  bore  the  ephah  con- 
taining Wickedness  up  and  away  between  heaven  and  earth.  The 
last  phrase,  like  the  "in  heaven"  of  Je.  8^,  is  an  allusion  to  the  fact 
that  the  stork  always  flies  very  high  in  its  migrations. 

10.  The  prophet,  whose  curiosity  is  now  fully  aroused,  inquires. 
Whither  are  they  moving  the  ephah?    He  says  the  ephah,  but,  of 

*  On  this  point  it  is  of  interest  to  note  further  that  the  word  here  used  for  wickedness  (nyu'l, 
rish'ak)  is  a  favourite  with  Ezekiei;  that  in  2  Ch.  24'  the  idolatrous  queen  Athaliah  is  called 
"the  wickedness"  {.nj;u'">cn);  and  that  the  consonants  of  the  root  from  which  both  of  these 
names  are  derived  are  found  in  the  reverse  order  in  Ashtoreth  (mnB'J.*),  Bab.  Ishlar,  the  name 
of  the  most  popular  of  the  false  divinities  by  whom  the  Hebrews  were  seduced  from  their  al- 
legiance to  Yahweh.     Cf.  i  K.  11^  2  K.  23"  Je.  7"  44"  "■. 

+  So  Theod.  Mops.,  Theodoret,  Ra.,  Rosenm.,  Wri.,  el  al.,  who  do  not  seem  to  have  seen 
the  ridiculousness  of  throwing  such  a  mass  of  lead  at  so  small  a  mark. 

t  Neumann's  comment  on  this  passage  is  a  good  example  of  his  florid  style  of  exegesis.  He 
says,  "How  full  of  surprising  beauty  is  the  thought  in  this  simple  picturel  The  women  who 
go  forth  from  the  Lord  to  banish  Godlessness  raise  themselves  on  bright  pinions,  wings  full  of 
love  and  kindness,  wings  that  care  for  their  own  with  loving  faithfulness  and  with  a  devoted 
passion  of  inspired  watchfulness." 

§  So  New.,  Mau.,  Brd.,  Or.,  et  al, 

*♦  Tristram  (NHB.,  246  /.)  seems  to  teach  that  the  date  at  which  the  storks  appear  in  Pal- 
estine is  always  in  the  latter  part  of  March.  This,  however,  is  not  correct.  .\t  any  rate,  in 
jpoj  immense  flocks  of  them  passed  over  Jerusalem  on  the  ninth  of  that  month. 


5"*  '75 

course,  it  is  the  woman  rather  than  the  measure  in  whose  destina- 
tion he  is  interested. — 11.  The  interpreter  does  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, answer  the  question  put  to  him,  but  replies  as  if  the  prophet 
had  asked,  not  whither,  but  why,  the  winged  women  were  moving 
the  one  in  the  ephah,  saying.  To  build  for  her  a  house.  The  proper 
interpretation  of  v.  ^  sheds  great  light  upon  this  passage,  for,  if 
Wickedness  is  the  personification  of  idolatry,  the  house  to  be  built 
is  probably  not  an  ordinary  dwelling,  but  a  temple  more  or  less 
imposing.  Now,  it  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  Babylonians 
called  their  zikkurats,  the  towers  of  from  three  to  seven  stories 
which  they  erected  in  honour  of  their  deities,  houses.  Thus,  the 
one  at  Nippur  they  named  "E-kur,"  the  house  of  the  mountain, 
the  one  at  Aga.de,  "  E-an-dadia,"  the  house  reaching  to  heaven, 
the  one  at  Babylon,  '^ E-temen-an-ki,"  the  house  of  the  foundation 
of  heaven  and  earth,  etc.*  These  zikkurats  were  the  most  notice- 
able feature  of  the  great  cities.  Cf.  Gn.  ii^^-.  When,  therefore, 
the  interpreter  adds  that  the  house  is  to  be  built  in  the  land  of 
Shinar,  the  question  naturally  arises  whether  it  is  not  to  be  one 
of  these  zikkurats.  There  certainly  is  nothing  in  the  passage  to 
forbid  such  an  inference. — Finally,  the  interpreter  says  that  when 
it,  the  house,  is  prepared,  lit.,  set  up,  they,  presumably  the  women, 
will  deposit  her,  with  the  ephah  in  which  she  is  now  confined,  there 
in  her  place,  lit.,  upon  her  base.  Here,  perhaps,  is  an  allusion  to 
the  little  room  or  shrine,  which  stood  on  the  platform  at  the  top 
of  the  zikkurat.-\ 

There  is  nothing  in  the  vision  as  above  interpreted  incongruous 
with  the  teaching  of  other  and  earlier  Hebrew  writers.  The  puri- 
fication of  the  Holy  Land  from  idolatry,  as  has  been  noted,  was 
predicted  by  Ezekiel.  That  the  false  deities  should  be  deported, 
and  not  destroyed,  is  in  harmony  with  the  doctrine  taught  in  Dt. 
^19  2q25/26^  according  to  which  the  worship  of  other  gods  was  per- 
missible in  foreign  countries.  That  their  destination  should  be 
Babylonia  is  not  surprising  when  one  remembers  how  long  the 
capital  of  that  country  had  been  the  centre  of  the  heathen  world. 
Cf.  Rev.  14^,  etc.    To  be  sure,  Babylon  had  now  lost  her  suprem- 

*  Cf.  Jastrow,  RBA.,  638  ff. 

t  Cf.  Jastrow,  RBA.,  621  /.;  Peters,  Nippur,  ii,  122. 


176  ZECHARIAH 

acy.  Of  this  the  prophet  is  perfectly  aware.  Hence  he  does  not 
stop  with  the  deportation  of  Wickedness,  but  adds  another  vision 
to  the  series.  Compare  van  Hoonacker,  who  refers  this  vision 
also  to  the  past. 

5.  nt]  So  (S'^^-aL  ^H.  <gx»ABQK  om.  We.  would  add  hd^nh.  That, 
however,  would  make  the  question  a  request  for  information,  which 
should  come  from  the  prophet.  Cf.  i'  2^/1'^  This  is  a  parallel  to  the 
"What  seest  thou"  of  42  52.  Marti,  followed  by  Kit.,  substitutes  no^xn 
for  no.  Both  suggestions  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  v.  ^^'^  is  an 
interpolation.  It  is  not  v.  "^a,  however,  but,  as  has  already  been  noted, 
V.  ^^^,  that  is  the  interpolation.  Consequently  the  present  reading  in 
this  verse  may  be  retained. — nNXvn]  The  gender  conforms  to  that  of  the 
word  understood.  Strictly  rendered,  the  question  is,  Who  is  this  goer- 
forth?  Cp.  Ct.  3«  610,  where  the  prtc.  is  used  adverbially. — 6.  •\nn^\^ 
nxxvn — ]  The  whole  is  omitted  by  the  later  critics.  If,  however,  the  rest 
of  the  verse  is  omitted,  this  part  must  be  retained  as  an  answer  to  the  pre- 
ceding question. — na-xn]  An  ephah,  although  it  has  the  art.  Cf.  Ges. 
§  126-  4.  Ace.  to  de  D.  the  prtc.  has  the  art.  because  it  is  construed 
with  HNT. — For  the  reasons  for  regarding  'ji  inx^^  g,  gloss  to  v.  ',  see  the 
comments. — 3r>]  Rd.,  with  05  &,  dji;j.  So  Houb.,  New.,  Bla.,  Burger, 
Hi.,  Fiirst,  Or.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  etal. — 7.  pnii]  g>  om.  pnt.  Rd. 
njni,  with  (&  U,  Dathe,  New.  and  the  later  critics,  or  better,  n"\x\ 
Cp.  Ges.  ^  '3«-  1^-  3-  ''°'^ — nns]  Not,  as  Ko.,  h  w'^^  teaches,  the  equiv- 
alent of  the  indefinite  art.,  but  a  numeral  emphasising  the  solitariness  of 
the  subject.  Cf.  Gn.  22"  Ex.  id^,  etc. — 8.  ps]  ^'-,  rb  rdXavrov  =  idd. 
— '^n]  Better,  with  ^,  H'- — "•''fl]  It  is  impossible  to  tell  by  inspection 
whether  the  sf.  refers  to  the  ephah  or  the  woman,  but  as  already  inti- 
mated, a  little  reflection  ought  to  result  in  a  decision  for  the  former  alter- 
native.— 9.  Some  mss.  begin  here  a  new  section. — an^ajaa  nm]  This 
clause  has  all  the  marks  of  a  gloss,  (i)  It  interrupts  the  natural  flow  of 
thought.  (2)  It  introduces  an  incidental  reference  to  wings  before  the 
statement  that  the  women  were  provided  with  them.  (3)  It  betrays,  in 
the  masc.  sf.  of  b.t'ojs,  a  more  careless  hand  than  that  of  the  original  au- 
thor, who  takes  pains  to  use  the  proper  gender  in  referring  to  the  women. 
Cf.  ■ijnS.  For  these  reasons  it  is  best  explained  as  a  marginal  gloss, 
suggested  by  Ez.  i^o  '■,  which  was  inserted  into  the  text  by  a  thoughtless 
copyist.  It  would  be  less  noticeable  if  it  followed  the  next  clause. — 
n-i<Dnn]  (g,  €7roTos;  B,  ntilvi;  21,  ntu'j;  Aq.  29,  ipcx)5iov. — njuTi]  Rd.,  with 
many  mss.,  njxr.ni.  Cf.  Ges.  <)  '4.  s.  R.  2. — 10.  ncn]  Rd.,  with  Kenn. 
250,  de  R.  545,  njn. — ma'^io]  Rd.,  with  many  mss.,  no^Sic. — 11. 
n^]  Raplie  before  an  accented  syllable.  Cf.  Ges.  «"■■':  "»•  '  <"'.— 
pini]  We.,  after  (S  (koI  iToi/xdffai),  panSi.  Now.  and  Kit.  omit  it 
as  a  dittog.,  but  the  resemblance  between  it  and  the  next  word  is  not  suf- 


6--  177 

ficiently  close  to  warrant  such  a  disposition  of  it.  Moreover,  it  makes 
good  sense  with  n''3  for  a  subject.  On  the  construction,  see  Ges.  5 1'^-  «  (f ). 
Van  H.rds.n;n  for  i^n,  Akkad.  Cf.  Gn.  lo". — nn>jni]  A  mongrel 
form  for  which  there  is  no  reasonable  defence.  Rd.,  with  (6  d,  nn^jni. 
So  Klo.,  Or.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti.,  Kit. — nnjsc]  Elsewhere  the  word  has  i 
even  in  the  pi.  with  sfs. 


(3)    THE   FOUR    CHARIOTS    (6*"^). 

In  this,  the  eighth  and  last,  vision  the  prophet  sees  four  chariots, 
each  with  horses  of  a  peculiar  colour,  equipped  for  the  cardinal 
points,  whither  they  are  finally  despatched.  Especial  attention 
is  called  to  those  that  have  gone  northward,  as  having  assuaged 
the  spirit  of  Yahweh  in  that  region. 

1.  When  next  the  prophet  lifts  up  his  eyes  he  sees  four  chariots. 

The  Hebrews  did  not  have  chariots  in  the  earlier  centuries  of  their  history. 
Their  country  was  so  rough  that  they  could  not  use  them  to  advantage  at  home 
and  they  were  not  strong  enough  to  venture  on  military  expeditions  beyond 
their  own  borders.  Cf.  Ju.  i'^.  When,  however,  they  became  united  and 
powerful  under  David,  they  began  to  be  more  aggressive,  and,  coming  in  con- 
tact with  peoples  who  used  chariots,  they  added  this  feature  to  their  equip- 
ment.    Cf.  2  S.  8<  I  K.  10"  ff.. 

The  fact  that  chariots  were  almost  exclusively  used  in  war  made 
them  a  symbol  for  strife  and  bloodshed.  Is.  22"  ^-  Zc.  9*".  The 
appearance  of  chariots  in  this  vision,  therefore,  leads  one  to  sus- 
pect that,  to  the  Jews,  it  signified  war  and  destruction  for  some  of 
the  neighbouring  nations.  The  chariots  are  represented  as  com- 
ing forth  from  between  (the)  two  mountains.  Where  these  were,  the 
prophet  does  not  tell  his  readers.  They  can  hardly  have  been 
Moriah,  the  temple  hill,  and  the  one  either  to  the  west*  or  the 
eastf  of  it,  since  he  describes  them  as  mountains  of  bronze.  There 
is  a  hint  of  their  location  in  vi  ^,  where  the  interpreter  speaks  of 
the  chariots  as  coming  forth  from  the  presence  of  Yahweh.  The 
natural  inference  from  the  two  passages  combined  is  that  these 
mountains  were  ideal  mountains  in  front  of  the  abode  of  Yahweh. 
Cf  2"/^^.     Perhaps,  however,  Zechariah  gave  them  some  such  ap- 

*  The  one  often  incorrectly  called  Zion.     So  Dru.,  Marck,  Mau.,  Pres.,  el  al. 
t  The  Mount  of  Olives.    So  Ki.,  Pu.,  Wri.,  Brd.,  Or.,  el  al. 


lyS  ZECHARIAH 

pearance  as  that  of  the  hills  with  which  both  he  and  his  readers 
were  familiar.  So  Marti.  If  the  Greek  reading,  "mountains" 
for  "myrtles,"  in  i"-  "  is  correct,  the  scene  of  the  first  vision  was 
probably  the  same  that  is  here  described,  and  equally  imaginary. 

The  prophet  seems  here  to  be  borrowing  from  a  popular  mythological  rep- 
resentation according  to  which  the  approach  to  the  dwelling  of  the  Deity  was 
guarded  on  either  side  by  a  brazen  mountain.  Had  the  brazen  pillars,  Jachin 
and  Boaz,  in  front  of  Solomon's  temple  (i  K.  7'''  "  )  any  connection  with  these 
fabled  mountains?  It  seems  possible  even  if,  as  W.  R.  Smith  {Sent.,  468 _^.) 
maintains,  these  pillars  were  originally  used  as  "altar  candlesticks,"  like 
those  in  front  of  Phoenician  sanctuaries. 

— 2  /.  Each  of  the  chariots  was  drawn  by  horses,  probably,  since 
this  was  the  custom  in  Egypt  and  Assyria,  two  in  number,*  which 
differed  in  colour  from  all  the  others.  The  first  had  bay,  the  sec- 
ond black,  the  third  ivhite  and  the  fourth  spotted  (or  speckled) 
horses.  On  the  significance  of  these  colours,  see  vv.  ^'  *•.  There 
is  no  reference,  here  or  elsewhere,  to  drivers  for  these  horses. 
They,  like  the  horsemen  of  the  first  vision,  seem  to  be  taken  for 
granted. 

4.  The  prophet  makes  the  usual  inquiry,  Sir,  what  are  these? — 
5.  The  great  Christian  Vrss.  agree  in  rendering  the  first  words  of 
the  reply  to  this  question,  These  are  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  and 
many  of  the  commentators  have  adopted  this  translation,!  citing 
Ps.  104^  in  support  of  it.  The  passage  cited,  however,  is  not  to  the 
point.  The  P.salmist,  it  is  true,  says  that  Yahweh  makes  "winds 
his  messengers,"  but  the  prophet  employs  the  expression  the  four 
winds,  which,  with  or  without  the  addition  of  heaven,  is  a  familiar 
designation  for  the  cardinal  points  of  the  compass.  Thus,  in  i  Ch. 
9'"'*  the  four  winds  are  defined  as  "the  east,  west,  north  and  south. 
See  also  Ez.  37"  42''°  Dn.  8".  There  is  only  one  i)assage  outside 
this  book  in  which  it  is  used  in  any  other  sense,  and  that  (Je.  49'"), 
being  later  than  Zechariah,t  was  probably  inlluenced  by  a  mis- 
taken interpretation  of  this  passage.     There  remains  the  paren- 

*  .According  to  Jerome  these  teams  were  quadriga,  but  he  probably  had  no  better  authority 
for  this  opinion  than  his  Jewish  teachers,  who  doubtless,  like  AE.,  got  it  from  i  K.  10",  where 
the  price  of  a  chariot  is  that  of  four  horses. 

t  So  Marck,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Klie.,  Brd.,  Or.,  Reu.,  el  al. 

t  Giescbrecht. 


6-»  17.9 

thetical  statement  in  2^°^®,  which,  however,  unless  emended  as  sug- 
gested, must  be  pronounced  another  example  of  the  same  sort. 
The  expression  used,  then,  indicates  that  the  prophet  was  not 
thinking  of  the  winds  themselves,  much  less  of  spirits,*  but  of  the 
principal  points  from  which  the  winds  blow.  This  being  the  case, 
it  is  necessary  to  translate,  with  Kimchi,  These  to  the  four  winds 
of  heaven  are  going  forth  .\  This  rendering  is  confirmed  by  other 
considerations,  the  most  weighty  of  which  is  that,  in  the  following 
verses,  where  the  interpreter  is  evidently  developing  the  statement 
here  made,  his  language  implies  that  the  four  winds  are  the  four 
directions  in  which  the  chariots  are  going.  Its  adoption  relieves 
the  reader  from  the  necessity  of  supposing  that  the  prophet  is  here 
using  figurative  winds  to  explain  imaginary  chariots  instead  of 
making  the  chariots,  or  their  drivers,  agents  of  Yahweh  correspond- 
ing to,  but  not  identical  with,  the  horsemen  of  the  first  vision. 
The  prophet  does  not  here  give  the  destinations  of  the  several 
chariots,  but  he  informs  the  reader  whence  they  have  come.  They 
are  going  forth  from  standing  before,  that  is,  from  the  presence  of, 
the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth;  from  whom  they  have  received  in- 
structions concerning  their  movements.  They  are  now  awaiting 
a  command  to  depart,  each  on  its  mission. 

6.  In  the  preceding  verse  it  was  the  chariots  that  were  promi- 
nent. From  this  point  onward  it  is,  and  necessarily,  the  horses; 
there  being  no  way  to  distinguish  the  chariots  except  by  the  colours 
of  the  animals  attached  to  them.  Note  also  that  the  order  in  which 
the  teams  are  mentioned  is  not  the  same  as  in  w.  2  /.  There  the 
bay  horses  came  first;  here  the  black  ones  lead.  There  seems  to 
have  been  no  reason  for  the  first  arrangement,  for  the  Hebrews 
had  no  stereotyped  order  for  the  points  of  the  compass.  Cf. 
Ez,  42^"^-  I  K.  7^  Nu.  34^*^-  35^,  etc.  The  change  was  proba- 
bly made  because  the  black  horses  are  the  only  ones  that  receive 
further  mention.  Cf.  v.  ^.  In  this  case  one  can  also  see  a  sig- 
nificance in  their  colour.  The  Hebrew  word  for  the  north  J  indi- 
cates that  it  was  conceived  as  a  dark  and  gloomy  region.  Hence 
it  is  fitting  that  the  black  horses  should  be  assigned  to  the  north 

*  So  Cal.,  Lowth,  New.,  Hd.,  Pu.,  et  al. 

t  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  t  JlflX  {saphon),  dark. 


l8o  ZECHARIAH 

country;  which  is  here,  however,  not  the  remote  north,  but,  as  in 
2^^'^,  the  region  of  Babylonia.  The  same  cannot  be  said  of  the 
second  pair,  the  white  ones.  Indeed,  there  is  a  difference  of  opin- 
ion on  the  point  of  the  compass  to  which  they  are  to  be  despatched. 
The  text  has  a  word  that  is  generally  rendered  after  them.  It  is 
probable,  however,  that  this  should  be  translated  to  the  west  of 
them,  or  emended  so  that  it  can  be  so  rendered.  It  might  then  be 
interpreted  as  referring  to  Asia  Minor  and  Europe,  the  home  of  the 
fair  peoples.  Cf.  Gn.  lo^^-.*  The  spotted  ones  go  to  the  south 
country,  but  why,  there  seems  to  be  no  means  of  discovering. f — 
7.  The  statement  with  reference  to  the  fourth  team  has  been 
only  partially  and  imperfectly  preserved,  but  it  can  easily  be  re- 
covered. The  horses,  of  course,  should  be,  not,  as  the  Massoretic 
text  has  it,  the  strong,  but  the  hay  ones,  since  they  are  the  only 
ones  whose  destination  has  not  been  given.  Moreover,  the 
statement  that  they  shall  go  forth  should  be  followed  by  an  in- 
dication of  the  direction,  which,  now  that  all  the  other  points 
have  been  pre-empted,  must  be  that  of  the  east  coimtry.  Cf. 
Gn.  25^.t — Thus  far  the  interpreter.  The  prophet  adds  that  the 
horses,  as  is  the  manner  of  spirited  animals,  all  sought  to  go  to 
traverse  the  earth,  or  the  parts  assigned  to  them ;  that  some  one,  who 
can  hardly  have  been  the  interpreter,  finally  gave  the  command, 
Go  traverse  the  earth;  and  that,  in  obedience  to  this  command, 
they  traversed  the  earth.     Cf.  i^"  ^•. 

There  is  an  interval  between  this  scene  and  the  incident  described 
in  the  next  verse.  The  length  of  the  interval  it  is  difficult  to  de- 
termine. The  prophet  can  hardly  have  meant  that  the  chariots, 
with  their  horses,  not  only  disappeared,  but  actually  traversed  the 
earth  before  anything  further  happened  within  the  sphere  of  the 
vision.  At  any  rate,  he  proceeds  as  if  almost  immediately,  while 
he  was  yet  gazing  after  them,  the  same  person  who  had  given  the 
command  dismissing  them  addressed  him. — 8.  Now,  the  prophet 

*  The  only  son  of  Yepheth  (Japhelh)  whose  name  at  all  resembles  the  word  for  while  (p"^, 
labium)  is  Vawan,  the  progenitor  of  the  Greeks,  and  in  this  case  the  resemblance  is  hardly 
close  enough  to  justify  suspicion  of  an  attempt  at  paronomasia. 

t  The  Hebrew  word  for  spotted  ("m3,  barodh),  to  l)e  sure,  has  an  inverse  likeness  to  one 
for  the  south  (3ni),  but,  if  the  prophet  had  this  word  in  mind,  it  is  strange  that  he  did  not  use 
it  in  place  of  the  one  (JDV"^,  teman)  found  in  the  text. 

%  The  Hebrew  word  tor  red  (DIlN,  'adhoin)  is  from  the  same  root  a.s  Edom. 


6*-«  i8i 

would  not  have  put  such  a  command  into  the  mouth  of  any  one 
but  Yahweh.  Hence,  it  is  probably  Yahweh  of  whom  he  here 
says,  he  called  and  spake  to  me.  This  inference  is  supported  by 
the  following  considerations:  (i)  The  introduction  of  Yahweh  as  a 
speaker,  though  unexpected,  is  not  unlike  Zechariah.  In  the  first 
vision,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  Deity  interposed  with  comforting 
words  for  the  encouragement  of  his  servant.  Cf.  i^^.  (2)  The 
prophet  says  that  the  speaker,  whoever  he  was,  called  in  the  sense 
of  cried,  when  he  spoke,  that  is,  spoke  in  a  loud  voice.  This  im- 
plies that  he  was  at  some  distance  and  points  to  Yahweh,  who,  ac- 
cording to  V.  ^,  was  within  the  sacred  precincts  before  the  entrance 
to  which  the  prophet  saw  the  chariots.  (3)  The  prophet  cannot 
have  intended  to  represent  the  interpreter  as  saying  of  the  horses 
that  had  gone  to  the  north  country,  they  shall  assuage  my  spirit 
in  the  north  country.  This  is  admitted  by  Marti  and  others,  who, 
however,  instead  of  adopting  the  obvious  alternative,  change  the 
text  to  give  it  the  form  of  a  speech  by  the  interpreter.  The  emen- 
dation suggested  is  ingenious,  but,  as  has  been  shown  under  (i) 
and  (2),  it  is  unnecessary  and,  indeed,  inadmissible.  The  speaker, 
then,  is  Yahweh,  and  the  spirit,  or,  as  Ezekiel*  puts  it, "  the  wrath  " 
assuaged  is  his  wrath.  But  why  should  Yahweh  be  angry  with 
the  north  country  alone  or  vent  his  anger  only  upon  that  region  ? 
This  question  is  answered  by  van  Hoonacker  by  saying  that  the 
prophet  here  again,  as  in  2^/1^^^-,  reminds  his  people  of  the  past, 
and  this  time  of  their  deliverance  from  the  Babylonians  by  Cyrus. f 
The  following  considerations,  however,  make  it  more  probable 
that  he  is  thinking  of  the  future:  (i)  The  fact  that  the  first  three 
visions  dealt  with  the  past,  and  the  next  two  with  current  interests, 
would  lead  one  to  expect  that  in  the  last  three  the  author  would 
make  further  progress.  (2)  The  sixth  and  seventh,  as  has  been 
shown,  are  capable  of  an  interpretation  in  harmony  with  this  ex- 
pectation. (3)  The  teaching  of  the  prophet  in  this  series  of  visions 
would  be  incomplete  without  a  glimpse  into  the  future  of  Wicked- 
ness. (4)  He  would  naturally  find  in  the  second  revolt  of  the 
Babylonians  against  their  Persian  conquerors,  which  occurred 

*  C/.  5I3  24",  etc. 

t  So  also  Sellin,  Sittd.,  ii,  87  /. 


1 82  ZECHARIAH 

about  this  time,  an  occasion  for  the  display  of  the  continued  dis- 
pleasure of  Yahweh. 

1.  m3D-\;;]  On  the  vocalisation  of  the  sg.  see  Ges.  ^  «5.  43  (*). — 
onnn]  Better,  with  (&,  onn.  So  Houb. — 3.  oma]  2  9,  ireXidvoL — 
d«sdn]  Om.  with  &.  The  omission  of  the  art.  is  significant.  How  the 
word  got  into  the  text  it  is  difficult  to  imagine,  unless  it  is  a  corruption  of 
D^xi;:n,  a  synonym  of  d^din  (Is.  63O  taken  from  the  margin  of  v.  2.  Cf. 
V.  ^.  In  its  present  position  it  is  meaningless.  Houb.  rds.  D^yjx,  in  the 
sense  of  parti-coloured. — 5.  ^NSn^]  Add,  with  <S  &",  ^3  nann. — iSn]  So 
(5^;  om.  ®^'^^-J^'. — y3-iN]  Rd.,  with  We.,  et  al.,  yaixS,  or  better,  since  in 
V.  ^  'Sn  is  used  to  indicate  destination,  yanx  Sn.  Note,  also,  that  it  is 
easier  to  explain  the  omission  of  *?«  than  of  S  after  n'?N  iSn. — nixxv] 
The  predicate  of  nSx  representing  maoic.  The  accentuation,  there- 
fore, is  incorrect.  D-iDtr'n  should  have  pashta. — 3X\"'nc]  (^  B  om.  the 
prep.;  &  both  it  and  niNSV. — 6.  na  nrs]  Bla.  ingeniously  suggests  that 
a  1  be  prefixed  to  the  relative  and  both  words  thus  attached  to  v.  *;  but  it 
is  better  to  explain  them  as  a  mistaken  addition  which  defeats  the  proph- 
et's purpose,  viz.,  to  bring  the  horses  with  their  colours  into  prominence, 
D^NX'']  The  context  requires  that  this  prtc.  have  the  force  of  an  impf .  It 
follows  that  i.s'X''  in  both  cases  should  be  replaced,  as  in  &,  by  the  prtc, 
or,  as  Ew.  suggests,  be  pointed  as  the  impf.  Cf.  Ges.  ^"'-  '■  '^^  '. — 
DnnnN  *?«]  These  words  would  naturally  be  translated  after  them,  but,  so 
rendered,  they  are  unintelligible  in  this  connection,  owing  to  the  improb- 
ability that  the  prophet  would  represent  two  chariots  as  having  the  same 
destination.  We.  infers  that  the  text  is  corrupt,  and  suggests  vn  '^x 
Dnpn.  If,  however,  as  he  himself  admits,  one  of  the  chariots  was  de- 
spatched to  the  west,  this  seems  to  be  the  place  to  find  a  statement  to  that 
effect.  Ew.  claims  that  the  present  text  may  be  so  rendered,  but  his  ex- 
planation is  not  entirely  satisfactory.  The  sf.  of  snnnN  refers,  not  to  the 
white,  but  to  the  black  horses.  Hence  the  destination  of  the  former  is 
west,  not  of  the  starting-point,  but  of  the  region  to  which  the  latter  have 
gone. — 7.  d^xcnh]  Rd.,  with  &  Aq.,  as  in  v.  \  O'DINH.  The  text  seems  to 
have  been  corrected  to  make  it  conform  to  v.  '.  So  Dathe,  Houb.,  Hi., 
Ew.,  Pres.,  Or.,  Marti,  et  al. — inx']  Here  also  rd.  either  awx'  or  wx;', 
and  add,  as  the  destination  of  this  team,  mp  y\H  Sn.  Cf.  Gn.  25'. 
Now.  supplies  i3j?n  yns  Sn,  Kit.  ->3j?D  y-Mi  Sn. — naSS]  Om.  (6^  &". 
I'^^nnS]  Twelve  Kenn.  mss.  rd.  nSnnn).  So  «6aqf. — g.  pj'tm]  (&^,  Kal 
ive8olr]<rap. — \-in]  Om.  with  <8&.  The  usual  construction  is  'Sn,  which 
follows  the  co-ordinate  vb. — in'jn]  We.  would  rd.  ^r\•^3\  and  the  fact 
that  both  <S^  and  &  have  a  connective  here  seems  to  favour  this;  but, 
since  the  pf.  is  frequently  used  for  the  impf.  of  acts  that  are  imminent,  a 
change  in  the  text  seems  unnecessary. — 'nn]  Marti,  who  insists  that  the 
speaker  can  only  be  the  interpreter,  sees  in  •«  an  abbreviation  for  nin>. 


i83 


The  prince  of  Judah  (6«-^^  46aP-ioa). 


The  rest  of  ch.  6,  although  it  has  a  certain  connection  with  the 
visions,  falls  outside  of  the  series.  This  is  clear  from  the  formula 
with  which  v.*  begins.  The  instruction  here  given  is  received, 
not  through  pictures  explained  by  a  third  person,  but  directly  from 
Yahweh.  The  same  is  true  of  4''a-ioa^  which,  as  has  been  shown,  is 
foreign  to  its  present  context,  but  which  finds  a  more  suitable  set- 
ting after  6".  The  only  objection  to  this  arrangement  is  that  there 
seems  to  be  little  connection  between  these  two  passages  and  the 
preceding  context.  On  the  other  hand,  they  would  quite  natiu-ally 
follow  the  fifth  vision.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  5^-6^  once 
preceded  the  third  chapter.  In  either  case  these  passages  would 
close  the  first  division  of  Zechariah's  prophecies,  forming  two 
paragraphs.    The  subject  of  the  first  is 


(l)   A   SYMBOLIC  CRO\VN   (6^"). 

The  prophet  is  instructed  to  take  with  him  certain  persons  to 
the  house  of  Josiah,  the  son  of  Sephaniah,  and  there  fashion  a 
crown  and  predict  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah. 

9.  The  prophecy  is  introduced  by  the  famihar  formula.  Then 
came  the  word  of  Yahweh  to  me.  Cf.  4^  7^  8^'  ^^.  In  the  third  and 
fourth  of  these  passages  "Yahweh  of  Hosts"  takes  the  place  of 
"Yahweh."  The  implication  is  that  the  message  came  soon  after 
the  last  vision;  but,  since  the  visions,  as  has  been  explained,  are 
but  literary  forms,  the  point  is  of  no  importance. — 10.  It  is  im- 
portant that  this  verse  be  correctly  understood,  but  not  easy  in 
the  present  form  of  the  text  to  discover  the  prophet's  meaning. 
The  very  first  words  provoke  discussion.  The  prophet  is  directed 
to  take  something/row  the  captivity.  At  once  two  questions  arise: 
Who — for  it  evidently  consists  of  persons — are  the  captivity?  and 
What  is  it  that  is  to  be  taken  from  them?  The  word  rendered 
captivity  commonly  refers  to  exiles  in  Babylonia.  Cf.  Je.  29* 
Ez.  i',  etc.     In  the  book  of  Ezra,  however,  "the  captivity,"  or 


184  ZECHARIAH 

"the  children  of  the  captivity,"  means  those  who  have  been  in 
exile  but  have  returned  to  their  country  (4*  9^  etc.),  and  this  is  the 
interpretation  that  best  suits  the  present  context.  But  what  is  it 
that  Zechariah  is  directed  to  take  from  these  returned  exiles  ?  In 
the  next  verse  the  object  of  the  verb  is  "silver  and  gold,"  and,  as 
it  is  taken  for  granted  that  the  prophet  is  there  simply  repeating 
the  thought  here  expressed,  the  commentators  generally  supply 
the  same  object  in  this  connection.  There  are,  however,  objec- 
tions to  such  an  interpretation.  In  the  first  place,  if  the  prophet 
really  intended  to  say  what  he  is  supposed  to  have  said,  he  could 
easily  have  arranged  the  sentence  so  that  the  verb  and  its  object 
would  come  together,  and  this  would  have  been  the  natural  ar- 
rangement. The  fact  that  he  did  not  adopt  this  arrangement 
casts  suspicion  upon  the  interpretation  suggested.  Secondly,  if 
the  prophet  in  v.  "  had  intended  to  repeat  for  emphasis  or  any 
other  purpose  the  thought  of  this  verse,  he  would  not  have  said 
"take  silver  and  gold,"  but  "take  from  them  silver  and  gold." 
The  clause,  as  it  now  reads,  attaches  itself,  not  to  what  precedes, 
but  to  what  follows.  Cf.  Is.  47^.  These  considerations  make  it 
necessary  to  look  elsewhere  for  the  object  of  the  verb  take.  It 
can  only  be  found  in  the  first  three  names  given.  As  Blayney  says, 
"The  prophet  is  not  required  to  take  silver  and  gold  from  the  per- 

'  sons  named,  but  to  take  them."  True,  the  text  must  be  emended 
to  bring  these  names  into  di'-ect  subordination  to  the  verb;  but, 
since  it  is  agreed  that  emendation  cannot  be  avoided,  and  since  the 
changes  required  by  this  interpretation  are  less  radical  than  those 
that  have  been  proposed,  this  is  not  a  serious  objection.     The  read- 

I  ing  recommended  is.  Take  from  the  (returned)  captives  Heldai, 
and  Tohidh,  and  Jedaiah.  Neither  of  these  persons  is  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament  outside  of  this  passage.  Cf.  v.  ".  The 
further  instructions  given  to  the  prophet,  so  far  as  they  are  con- 
tained in  this  verse,  with  slight  modifications,  read,  a^id  come  with 
them  to  the  house  of  Josiah,  the  son  of  Sephaniah,  who  (also)  hath 
come  from  Babylon.  Rosenmiiller  suggests  that  the  Sephaniah 
(Zephaniah)  here  mentioned  may  be  the  "second  priest"  put  to 
death  by  Nebuchadrezzar  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (2  K. 
25'*  *'^);  but,  as  that  was  nearly  seventy  years  earlier  and  there  is 


6'-"  i85 

no  intimation  that  Josiah  belonged  to  the  priesthood,  this  sugges- 
tion is  improbable.* 

11.  The  question  now  arises  why:  the  prophet  was  directed  to 
take  the  three  persons  first  mentioned  to  the  house  of  the  fourth. 
There  are  three  possible  answers.  The  first  to  suggest  itself,  and 
the  one  that  the  reviser  would  probably  have  given,  is  that  Hel- 
dai  and  his  companions  were  to  furnish  the  gold  and  silver  for  the 
work  in  hand;  but,  if  this  were  correct,  the  materials  would  have 
been  mentioned  in  v.  ^°.  There  is  more  to  be  said  for  the  supposi- 
tion that,  as  Josiah  seems  to  have  been  a  goldsmith  who  had  a 
home  and  a  shop  in  Jerusalem,  the  other  three  were  of  the  same 
trade,  but,  being  among  the  recent  arrivals,  had  not  yet  established 
themselves  in  the  city.  The  idea  is  that  they  were  all  to  be  em- 
ployed to  make  a  crown,  that  it  might  be  the  sooner  completed,  also 
that  they  might  share  the  honour  of  having  made  it.  This,  how- 
ever, is  pure  hypothesis.  A  more  reliable  explanation  (Blayney) 
is  that  Zechariah  took  these  men  with  him  as  witnesses  to  the  sym- 
bolic act  that  he  was  about  to  perform. f  Isaiah  (8^^-),  at  the 
command  of  Yahweh,  took  witnesses  when  he  posted  his  prophecy 
of  the  destruction  of  Israel  and  Syria,  and  Jeremiah  (32"  ^•)  when 
he  wished  to  publish  his  faith  in  a  future  for  his  country.  If, 
therefore,  Zechariah  took  means  to  preserve  and  transmit  the 
memory  of  his  predictions  concerning  Zerubbabel,  he  was  only 
doing  what  the  greatest  of  his  predecessors  had  done. — The  Mas- 
soretic  text  represents  the  prophet  as  further  commanded  to  place 
the  crown,  when  completed,  on  the  head  of  Joshtia  the  son  of  Je- 
hosadak  the  high  priest.  This,  however,  cannot  have  been  the 
original  reading;  for,  if  he  had  fulfilled  this  command,  at  the  same 
time  pronouncing  the  words  he  is  here  instructed  to  speak  on  the 
occasion,  he  would  in  so  doing  have  contradicted  his  own  teach- 
ing and  Haggai's,  which  clearly  was  that  the  Messianic  prophecies 
were  fulfilled  in  Zerubbabel,  and  that  it  was  he  who  should  build 
the  temple  of  Yahweh.  Cf  4'*  ^.  If,  therefore,  a  name  was  men- 
tioned here,  it  must  have  been  that  of  Zerubbabel.  Perhaps,  as 
Wellhausen  maintains,  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  entire  is  an  addi- 

*  See  further,  on  the  Zephaniah  of  2  K.  25'*  ^-j  Je.  21'  2()25-  29  ^^3^ 
t  So  also  van  Hoonacker. 


1 86  ZECHARIAH 

tion;  which  means  that  the  prophet  left  it  to  his  readers  to  supply 
the  name  of  Zerubbabel.  The  present  reading  is  a  clumsy  at- 
tempt, by  an  anxious  scribe,  to  bring  the  prophet  into  harmony 
with  history.  Neither  Zerubbabel  nor  any  other  descendant  of 
David  ever  again  ruled  as  king  in  Jerusalem,  but,  in  process  of 
time,  the  high  priest  became  the  head  of  the  entire  community. 
It  is  this  condition  of  things,  unforeseen  by  Zechariah,  which  the 
changes  in  the  text  were  intended  to  justify.* 

12.  The  crown  was  expected  to  create  a  sentiment  for  indepen- 
dence and  stimulate  effort  toward  its  achievement.  The  explana- 
tion that  follows  is  calculated  to  emphasise  its  significance.  Lo, 
a  man,  says  Yahweh,  whose  name  is  Shoot.  There  was  a  similar 
announcement  in  3*,  but,  as  the  appearance  of  the  Shoot  in  that 
connection  seemed  unnatural,  the  discussion  of  his  identity  was 
postponed.  The  word  first  occurs  as  a  Messianic  term  in  Is.  4^, 
where,  however,  it  is  an  appellative  denoting  the  marvellous  produce 
of  the  Holy  Land  under  the  blessing  of  Yahweh.  In  Je.  23'',  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  used  of  a  scion  of  the  house  of  David  with  a 
well-defined  character.  The  prince  so  named  "shall  deal  wisely, 
and  execute  justice  and  righteousness  in  the  land."  It  is  evident 
that  Zechariah  had  this  latter  passage  in  mind,  his  Shoot  being 
expressly  called  a  man.  Cf.  Je.  33'^. — There  follows  a  clause  that 
has  been  variously  understood.  There  are  those  who  take  it  im- 
personally, finding  in  it  a  prediction  of  prosperity  like  that  in 
Is.  4^,f  or  of  the  rise  from  the  man  in  question  of  a  flourishing  dy- 
nasty ;t  but  there  are  objections  to  both  of  these  views,  (i)  It  is 
doubtful  if  the  compound  word  which  would  be  literally  trans- 
lated/row under  him  can  properly  be  interpreted  as  meaning  either 
under  his  reign  or  from  his  root.  (2)  The  follomng  verbs  all  have 
personal  subjects,  and  the  one  in  this  clause  would  naturally  have 
the  same  construction.  Those  who  construe  it  in  this  way,  how- 
ever, differ  in  their  interpretation  of  the  rest  of  the  clause,  the  ques- 
tion being  whether  it  refers  to  the  region  from  which  the  Shoot  will 
spring,§  his  lineage**  or  his  condition. ff      The  difficulty  in  this 

*  CI.  Wellhausen,  IJG.,  140  ff.  t  So  Lu.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Pres.,  el  at. 

X  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  §  So  Ki.,  Dru.,  el  al. 

**  So  Ra.,  Pern.,  Roscnm.,  Rurgcr,  Koh.,  Klie.,  Kc,  Wri.,  Brd.,  el  al, 
tt  So  Marck,  Pu.,  Or.,  el  al. 


6"-"  i87 

question  arises  from  the  fact  that  most  of  those  who  have  attempted 
to  solve  it,  ignoring  the  context,  have  taken  for  granted  that  the 
prophet  is  looking  into  the  remote  future,  in  fact  predicting  the  -\ 
appearance  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Now,  it  is  only  necessary  to  / 
consider  that  there  is  but  one  definite  thing  that  the  Shoot  is  ex- 
pected to  do,  namely,  to  build  the  temple  of  Yahweh,  to  see  that  he 
must  be  a  contemporary  of  the  prophet,  and  when  one  again  re- 
members that  this  is  precisely  the  task  which  in  4'-  ^  is  assigned  to  I 
Zerubbabel,  it  becomes  clear  that  this  passage  is  simply  a  recogni- 
tion of  him  as  the  Messiah.  If,  however,  Zerubbabel  is  the  Shoot, 
the  prediction  that  he  shall  shoot  can,  under  the  circumstances,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  place  of  his  birth  or  his  lineage,  but  must 
refer  to  a  rapid  rise  from  a  comparatively  humble  position  to  one 
of  greater  prominence  and  influence.  Hence,  the  whole  clause 
may  be  rendered,  Upward  shall  he  shoot.  The  result  is  more  im- 
portant than  at  first  appears;  for,  if  the  interpretation  proposed  is 
correct,  the  clause  is  a  mere  play  on  the  name  Shoot*  the  thought 
of  which  is  more  worthily  expressed  in  the  proper  connection  in 
the  next  verse.  In  other  words  this  clause,  like  the  next  one,  which 
is  wanting  in  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  is  an  interpolation. 

13.  The  removal  of  the  interpolated  clauses  brings  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Shoot  into  immediate  connection  with  the  more 
suitable  of  the  two  statements  with  reference  to  his  mission  at  the 
beginning  of  this  verse.  He,  says  Yahweh,  emphasising  the  sub- 
ject, shall  build  the  temple  of  Yahweh.  Not  that  the  governor  has 
thus  far  had  no  hand  in  the  work.  The  expression  here  used  must 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  4^-  ®.  Thus  interpreted  it  means  that 
he  will  complete  the  task  on  which  he  and  his  people  have  now  for 
five  months  been  engaged.  Thereafter  he  shall  assume  majesty, 
attain  the  rank  and  honours  of  royalty,  not,  apparendy,  at  once, 
but  ultimately,  as  his  reward  for  building  the  temple  of  Yahweh. 
Then  he  shall  sit  and  rule  on  his  throne,  exercise  the  various  func- 
tions of  a  king. — Now,  before  the  Exile  the  king  was  supreme  in 
Judah,  not  only  in  civil  and  military,  but  in  religious  matters.  He 
controlled  the  temple  and  its  services;  the  officiating  priests,  like 

*  Sellin  finds  here  a  play,  not  only  on  Shoot,  but  on  the  actual  name  of  the  governor,  in 
Babylonian  Zir-baMli. 


l88  ZECHARIAH 

the  soldiers  on  guard,  being  his  servants.  Cf.  2  K.  16"  *•  21'^- 
22'*^-,  etc.  When  the  community  was  reorganised  after  the  cap- 
tivity, the  religious  interests  being  predominant,  the  priests  nat- 
urally acquired  a  considerable  degree  of  authority.  In  the  vision 
of  the  lamp  (4"  ^•)  Zechariah  recognises  this  change  by  giving  to 
Joshua  equal  importance  with  Zerubbabel  as  a  servant  of  Yahweh. 
In  this  passage,  also,  although  he  promises  the  crown  to  the  latter, 
he  makes  ample  provision  for  the  former,  for  it  is  Joshua  whom  he 
has  in  mind  when  he  says  that  Ikere  shall  be  a  priest  on  his  (Zerub- 
babel's)  right  hand.  This  is  as  clear  as  that  Zerubbabel  is  the 
Shoot.  There  is,  therefore,  as  little  need  of  supplying  here  the 
name  of  the  high  priest  as  in  v.  "  that  of  the  governor.  The  posi- 
tion at  the  right  hand  of  the  king  means  power  and  honour  second 
only  to  those  enjoyed  by  the  monarch.  But  two  persons  so  nearly 
equal  are  liable  to  become  jealous  of,  and  in  the  end  openly  hostile 
to,  each  other.  The  prophet  does  not  anticipate  any  such  rupture 
between  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  There  shall  he  peaceful  counsel 
between  the  two;  they  will  plan  in  perfect  harmony  for  the  best  in- 
terests of  those  whom  they  have  been  divinely  chosen  to  govern. — 
14.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that,  if  Zechariah  was  instructed 
to  crown  Zerubbabel,  he  was  to  leave  the  token  of  future  authority 
in  the  governor's  possession.  He  would  naturally  make  some  other 
disposition  of  it.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  this  verse  in  its  pres- 
ent form  correctly  represents  him.  Not  that  there  is  anything  sus- 
picious in  the  idea  of  preserving  the  crown  as  a  memorial,  even 
in  th^  temple  of  Yahweh.  There  exposed,  it  would  serve  as  a  re- 
minder to  disheartened  patriots  of  the  glorious  things  it  symbol- 
ised. It  is  strange,  however,  that  it  should  be  described  as  a  me- 
morial to  Heldai  and  his  associates.  This  implies  that  they  fur- 
nished the  materials  for  it,*  a  thought  which,  as  has  been  shown, 
was  imported  into  v.  *"  by  a  reviser.  It  is  therefore  probable  that 
this  verse,  or  at  least  the  names  it  contains,  are  by  the  same  hand.f 
— The  omission  of  this  verse  leaves  the  question  of  the  disposition 
of  the  crown  unsettled.  Perhaps  it  was  never  made.  The  prophet 
does  not  say  that  it  was;  and,  if  he  did,  there  would  still  be  room  for 
doubt  whether  he  meant  to  be  understood  literally;  for,  although 

*  Cj.  Ex.  3o'«  Nu.  3i«.  t  Cj.  Now.,  Marti,  Kit 


in  some  instances  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  action  de- 
scribed was  performed,*  Je.  13^  ^-  is  an  exception,  and  there  may 
be  others  in  which  the  narrative  is  only  a  parable. f 

9.  The  removal  of  46a->''»  from  its  place  in  M  leaves  this  the  first  clear 
case  of  the  use  of  the  introductory  formula,  Then  came  the  word  of  Yahweh 
to  me. — 10.  mpS]  The  inf.  abs.  for  the  imv.  Cf.  Je.  32'^;  Ges.  ^'"-  ♦ 
(*)  o.  Perhaps,  however,  since  9  Kenn.  mss.  have  npS,  the  imv.  should 
be  substituted  for  the  present  reading. — hnc]  In  the  sense  of  out  of. 
Cf.  14". — iiSnc]  The  emendation  suggested  in  the  comments  requires 
nSn  PN,  and  pni,  instead  of  nN:3i,  before  each  of  the  other  names. 
For  nSn  van  H.  rds.  ann.  Cf.  Ezr.  2^^.  These  names  are  all  treated  as 
appellatives  in  (&,  ii'^nr;  being  rendered  by  Trapd  rdv  apxivri^v,  n>3ia  pnd 
by  Tiapa  tQ)v  x/^JC^Mw  ai)r-^y,  and  n^jjii  nxa  by  irapa  rCov  iweyvwKbTu)v 
ain-ffv;  but  some  mss.  ((S'-)  add  a  second,  correct  rendering  of  M. — nsai'] 
We.  rd.  PN21  and  omits  all  between  it  and  nv^:ix\  Similarly  Now., 
Marti,  Kit.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  explain  pn2i2  except  as  a  dittog. 
Besides,  pn3i'  is  needed  with  hpn,  for  which  the  original  seems  to  have 
been  onx.  Cf.  Ex.  175.  So  Houb.  On  the  tense  of  pn3i',  see 
Ges.  5"2.  3  ic)  f, — xinn  0V3]  The  phrase  is  unintelligible  in  this  connec- 
tion.— 1K3]  Rd.,  with  (&  ^{^,  N3,  the  subject  being  Josiah.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  say  that  the  other  three  had  come  from  Babylon.  So 
Houb. — The  verse,  as  above  emended,  reads,  nSn  pn  r\^M7\  pxn  ncDiiS 
"ya^D  N3  -\b'n  nijDX  p  ni-c-x''  pu  dpn  pn31  nipii  pxi  ri'^aio  pni.  This  may 
—  •  not  be  a  perfectly  correct  restoration  of  the  original  text,  but  it  is  so  great 
an  improvement,  both  linguistically  and  exegetically,  on  the  traditional 
reading  that  there  can  be  no  disadvantage  in  provisionally  adopting  it. — 
11.  r~>-yoy\  Rd.,with&S,P75?;  SoTheod.  Mops.,  Houb.,  Bla.,  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  Kit.,  et  al.  The  same  mistake  is  found  in  Jb.  31'^ — pct'i]  Per- 
haps for  nPDWi. — As  already  explained  in  the  comments,  the  name  of 
Zerubbabel  must  be  substituted  for  that  of  Joshua  or  v.  ^  entire  omitted, 
the  latter  being  the  more  defensible  alternative.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti, 
Kit.  The  attempt  of  van  H.  to  emend  by  substituting  'jdS  for  c'Nia  is  not 
commendable. — 12.  vSn]  If  v.  i">  be  omitted,  this  word  must  also  be 
dropped  or  changed  to  Dn^Sx.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — idnS'-^]  The 
word  is  not  needed  after  icx.  It  is  therefore  omitted  in  these  chapters, 
except  in  this  passage  and  another  (7')  in  which  it  is  clearly  an  interpola- 
tion. So  <S  0. — The  reasons  for  regarding  this  verse  from  vpnpai  on- 
ward as  of  secondary  origin,  so  far  as  they  are  exegetical,  have  already 
been  given.  There  is  one  further  point  that  deserves  mention  in  this 
connection.  The  speech  beginning  with  this  verse  was  evidently  meant 
to  be  peculiarly  rhythmical,  but  its  symmetry  is  disturbed  by  the  words 

*  Cj.  I  K.  22'i  '•  Is.  20I  «■  Je.  19I  ff-  272,  etc.  t  Cj.  ii<  ff-  Ez.  4'  »■  <  «■  5I  »•  12' «-. 


190  ZECHARIAH 

in  question. — At  first  sight  it  seems  impossible  to  tell  whether  it  is  the 
last  clause  of  this  verse  or  the  first  of  the  next  that  should  be  dropped.  & 
favours  the  former,  (&  the  latter,  of  these  alternatives.  The  use  of  the 
emphatic  pron.  Nin,  a  frequent  means  of  connecting  clauses  in  Heb.,  at 
the  beginning  of  v.  "  speaks  for  the  genuineness  of  the  clause  that  follows. 
C/.  Ju.  13^,  etc. — So^n]  d,  rbp  oJkov.  So  also  in  vv.  "•  "•  '*;  in  8'  only, 
i'a6j. — 13.  p3]  01,  3T  ps.  Ew.  supplies  jJiC'in>.  So  also  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  GASm.,  Kit.  The  prophet  no  doubt  had  the  high  priest  in  mind, 
but  he  did  not  need  to  say  so,  and  the  absence  of  the  art.  with  po  is 
proof  that  neither  Joshua's  name  nor  his  title  was  mentioned. — -^^03  Sj.'] 
Rd.,  with  Q»  (iK  de^iuv  avrov),  u^:;'" '?;'. — 14.  A  sufficient  reason  for  be- 
lieving that  this  verse  is  not  from  the  hand  of  Zechariah  has  been  set 
forth.  The  variations  in  the  names  from  those  in  v.  •",  if  they  could  be 
shown  to  be  intentional,  would  be  significant. — mBj?ni]  This  word,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  36  mss.  have  nnapni,  like  the  nnop  of  v.  "  should 
be  pointed  as  a  sg.  See  ninn;  also  (6  &.  E  has  unnarn  =  nsts,  a 
musical  term  found  in  the  superscriptions  of  many  psalms.  Cf.  Ps.  3', 
etc. — DSn*^]  There  seems  to  be  no  ground  for  supposing,  with  AE.,  el  al., 
that  Heldai  had  a  second  name,  or,  with  Ew.,  that  his  name  was  changed. 
It  is  therefore  probable  that  &  is  correct  in  reading  here,  as  in  v. '»,  Hel- 
dai. So  Houb.,  New.,  Bla.,  Koh.,  Or.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  et  al. 
In  I  Ch.  ii^"  the  same  name  is  corrupted  to  n'^n,  and  in  2  S.  2329  to  a'^n. 
Van  H.  here,  as  in  v.  10,  rd.  onn. — jnSi]  Many,  following  (5,  render  the 
nominal  part  of  this  word  as  an  appellative.  So  Theod.  Mops.,  Theodo- 
ret,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Koh.,  Klie.,  Ke.,  Brd.,  Wri.,  Or.,  GASm.,  et  al. 
Others  explain  it  as  another  name  for  Josiah.  So  AE.,  Ki.,  Dru.,  Pem., 
Lowth,  Rosenm.,  et  al.  Still  others,  with  &,  rd.  nirx-'':'!.  So  Houb.,  New., 
We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  et  al.  The  objection  to  this  emendation  is  that  it 
is  easier  to  explain  &  than  to  understand  how  M  could  have  been  mis- 
taken for  it.  This  objection  would  not  hold  against  ph  for  ]2  jn'^i, 
an  alternative  suggested  by  Houb.,  or  against  nic'NiSi  on'^i,  from  which 
both  &  and  M  might  easily  have  arisen.  On  onSi,  see  Ges.  5 16<-  '"''•  (*>. 
Van  H.  om.  rr'jDX  ja  pSi  entire. — ]3]  (6'^^^^",  toTs  vloh  =  'jaS;  a  pal- 
pable error. 

(2)    ZERUBBABEL  AND  THE  TEMPLE   (^^^^'^-    ^^-'  6^^). 


Zechariah  receives  a  second  message,  in  which  the  governor  is 
assured  of  the  divine  assistance  and  promised  uhimate  success  in 
the  difficult  task  of  rebuilding  the  ruined  temple.  The  prophet  is 
so  confident  of  his  inspiration  that  he  stakes  his  reputation  on  the 
fulfilment  of  this  prediction. 


^8.1  oa.    6a^-7    515  jgj 

8.  On  the  introductory  formula,  see  6^. — 9.  In  the  preceding 
paragraph,  as  has  been  shown,  the  central  figure  was  originally 
Zerubbabel.  Here,  also,  the  high  priest  is  ignored.  It  is  the  hands 
of  Zerubbahel  that  have  laid  the  foundation  of  this  house,  the  prophet 
declares.  He  doubtless  means  to  give  the  governor  credit  also  for 
the  whole  conduct  of  the  enterprise  since  its  inception.  Moreover, 
he  expects  him  to  continue  to  direct  it;  he  says  that  his  hands  shall 
finish  it.  This  prediction  is  punctuated  by  an  appeal  to  the  future 
first  found  in  2^^/^,  which,  although  it  seems  superfluous  at  this 
point,  may  yet,  as  was  said  in  commenting  on  2*"''/",  be  genuine. 
Indeed,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  any  one  else  than  the 
prophet  should  have  added  it. — 10a.  The  prediction  concerning 
the  completion  of  the  temple  implies  the  prevalence  of  doubt  among 
the  Jews  on  the  subject.  They  knew  that  their  available  resources 
were  slender,  and  they  felt  so  deeply  that  Yahweh  was  displeased 
with  them  that  they  hardly  dared  expect  his  assistance.  The 
prophet  understands  the  situation.  When,  therefore,  he  asks.  Who 
hath  despised  a  day  of  small  things  ?  he  does  not  mean  to  reproach 
them.  The  question,  in  its  very  terms,  admits  the  complaint.  It 
is  a  day  of  small  things.  Cf.  Hg.  2^.  The  prophet  also  takes  for 
granted  that  they  who  have  most  deeply  felt  their  poverty  would 
most  gladly  rise  above  their  circumstances.  He  is  trying  to  help 
them.  To  this  end  he  pictures  a  time  when  they  shall  see  and,  of 
course,  as  loyal  Jews,  rejoice  to  see,  the  plummet  in  the  hand  of 
Zerubbabel.  The  thought  is  perfectly  intelligible,  and,  on  the  sup- 
position that  w.  ^^^"^  are  to  follow,  perfectly  appropriate  in  this 
connection.  The  governor  is  represented  as  a  builder.  The  plum- 
met in  his  hand  is  not  only  the  sign  of  his  calling,  but  an  indication 
that  he  is  actually  engaged  in  the  practice  of  it.  To  see  him,  there- 
fore, with  the  plummet  in  his  hand  is  to  see  the  walls  of  the  temple, 
now  hardly  begun,  rising  from  day  to  day  under  his  direction. 
Thus,  the  verse  marks  a  stage  between  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  the  work  that  Yahweh  has  commissioned  him  to  do. — 6a/3-b.  At 
this  point  there  is  need  of  a  warning.  There  is  danger  lest  the  flat- 
tering assurance  that  the  prophet  has  just  uttered  should  defeat  its 
own  object  by  making  Zerubbabel  think  more  highly  of  himself 
than  he  should  or  inducing  his  people  to  put  too  great  confidence 


192  ZECHARIAH 

in  human  ability.  To  prevent  any  such  mistake  the  prophet  in- 
troduces another  word  of  Yahweh,  not  to,  but  concerning,  Zerub- 
babel,  Not  by  force,  and  not  by  strength,  but  by  my  Spirit.  Not  that, 
on  the  other  hand,  he  intends  to  teach  that  in  the  present  instance 
there  is  nothing  to  do  but  trust  in  Yahweh.  He  merely  wishes  to 
remind  his  compatriots  that,  as  Haggai  also  taught  (2'''),  the  surest 
guarantee  of  success  in  the  undertaking  they  have  at  heart  is  the 
presence  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  their  midst.  It  is  hardly  necessary 
to  say  that,  since  this  passage  is  not  projjerly  a  part  of  the  \asion  of 
the  lamp,  the  attempt  to  establish  a  parallel  between  the  Spirit  and 
the  oil  in  the  lamp  by  Kohler  and  others  is  mistaken  and  fruitless. 
— 7.  The  prophet  expects  the  condition  of  success  to  be  fulfilled. 
Hence,  he  believes,  as  he  said  in  v.  ^,  that  the  temple  will  be  com- 
pleted. He  recognises  that  there  are  difficulties,  but  he  does  not 
consider  them  insurmountable.  Who  art  thou,  great  mountain?  he 
cries,  apostrophising  them ;  before  Zerubbabel  become  a  plain,  disap- 
pear! then  shall  he,  or  that  he  may,  bring  forth  the  topstone  with 
shouts,  Grace,  grace  to  it!  The  word  here  rendered  grace  may  mean 
beauty  as  well  as  favour,  acceptance.  Cf.  Pr.  1°  17*,  etc.  Hence, 
the  cry  with  which  the  topstone  is  greeted  has  been  interpreted  as 
an  expression  of  admiration,  //  is  beautiful,  beautiful/  *  This  inter- 
pretation, however,  would  imply  that  the  stone  was  different  in  kind 
from  the  rest  in  the  building,  or  very  richly  ornamented,  an  assump- 
tion for  which  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  authority.  It  seems 
better,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  meant  to  represent  the 
people  as  showing  their  interest  in  the  occasion  by  appealing  to 
Yahweh  to  bless  the  ceremony  of  laying  the  last  stone  with  success 
and  thus  setting  the  seal  of  his  acceptance  upon  the  completed  sanc- 
tuary. — 6*^ .  There  remains  the  last  verse  of  ch .  6,  which ,  or  a  part  of 
it,  will  serve  as  a  conclusion  to  this  paragraph.  It  seems  to  have  been 
left  where  it  stands  because  it  contains  no  reference  to  Zerubbabel, 
and  therefore  does  not  betray  the  reviser  of  the  preceding  verses. 
It  adds  a  thought  necessary  to  the  completion  of  Zechariah's  pic- 
ture of  the  restoration  of  the  sanctuary.  Haggai  (2^)  predicted 
that  all  the  nations  would  bring  their  treasures  to  enrich  it.  Zech- 
ariah  has  not  hitherto  said  anything  so  definite  on  the  subject,  but 

♦  So  Ra.,  Now.,  et  al. 


in  2^"*/"  he  foretells  that  many  nations  will  attach  themselves  to 
Yahweh,  and  this  prediction  warrants  one  in  supposing  that  he  ex- 
pected the  nations  to  assist  the  Jews  in  their  enterprise,  and  in  at- 
tributing to  him  the  prophecy,  they  shall  also  come  from  afar  and 
build  on,  assist  in  building,  the  temple  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  8^^.  There 
follows  a  fourth  appeal  to  the  future  which  provides  a  fitting  close 
for  the  paragraph.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  but  a  fragment  of  a 
sentence,  having  no  connection  with  what  precedes,  which  appears 
to  have  been  copied  from  Dt.  28*. 

In  the  paragraph  on  the  symbolic  crown  no  account  was  taken  of  6'^. 
The  reason  for  neglecting  it  was  that  no  connection  could  be  found  be- 
tween it  and  the  preceding  context.  It  has,  however,  features  in  com- 
mon with  46a^-ioa.  For  example,  it  not  only  deals  with  the  subject  of  the 
temple,  but  contains  a  repetition  of  the  appeal  to  the  future  found  in  4'. 
It  is  therefore  at  least  possible  that  the  two  passages  belong  together,  that, 
in  fact,  46»^-io»  once  occupied  the  place  now  only  partially  filled  by  6'^ 
But  46ap-ioa  apparently  consists  of  two  parts  which  for  some  reason  have 
been  transposed.  If,  therefore,  these  verses  be  given  the  new  setting, 
the  order  will  be  48-ioa.  ea^-?  515.  Thus  arranged  the  three  fragments 
yield  a  very  satisfactory  sense. — 8.  The  Massoretes  recognised  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  formula  here  used  by  beginning  a  new  paragraph  with 
this  verse. — 9.  no'']  This  word  has  always  been  treated  as  a  Pi.  pf.,  but 
Sellin  {Stud.,  ii,  92  /.)  makes  it  a  Qal  impf.,  like  nx''  for  ns",  over- 
looking the  objection  that  if  the  prophet  had  meant  to  use  the  impf.  he 
would  have  put  this  as  well  as  the  next  vb.  into  the  proper  gender. — non] 
Rd.,  with  10  Kenn.  mss.,  n>3n  pn. — njj?xari]  On  the  retention  of  __  in 
pause,  see  Ges.  ^  29.  4  (a)  r., — nyT«i]  Rd.,  with  3  Kenn.  mss.,  C6^  H  g»  SI., 
oriyiii.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 10a.  ic]  The  question  is  equiv- 
alent to  a  condition.  Cf.  Ex.  24"  Ju.  7^,  etc.  It  may,  therefore,  prop- 
erly be  followed,  as  it  is  in  this  instance,  by  the  pf.  with  1.  Cf.  Ges. 
U12.  5  (a)  ^._,3]  With  -V-,  as  if  from  ni.  Cf.  na.  Is.  44I8;  Ges. 
^72.  7.R.8.  K.6.  ^  '"■=  rd.  13';  but  the  pf.  is  more  expressive.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^I's-  «  (">. — iN-(i]  A  co-ordinate  vb.  with  the  force  of  an  inf.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^'2»-  2  c^J. — Snan  pxn]  Ace.  to  We.  the  object  here  meant  is  the 
same  as  u'N-in  pxn  of  v.  ^  So  Now.,  Marti.  There  is  less  ground  for 
any  such  opinion  if  the  text  be  transposed  so  that  v.  ^  will  follow  instead 
of  preceding  this  one.  On  the  construction  of  Snan,  see  2  K.  i6'<; 
Ges.  ^'27-  <  (")  A-. — -i>3]  j^,  pi.  The  oriental  reading  is  'jsS.— 6a/3-b. 
iDf<'?]  &  om. — S'na]  (&  adds  neydXrj. — inn]  ^  om.  sf. — n^x]  Rd.  onj, 
as  in  I'. — 7.  -in]  The  voc.  regularly  takes  the  art.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'"-  «  («). 
Nor  need  it  be  omitted  on  account  of  a  preceding  n.     Cf  2  K.  6'^    Per- 


194  ZECHARIAH 

haps  other  changes  should  be  made.  Lambert  {ZAW.,  1902,  338)  for 
the  first  three  words  rds.  "^^^  PN  'Pnri;  but  the  present  text  could  be 
more  easily  explained  as  a  corruption  of  "inn  PN  ]ph  >o.  Houb.  rds. 
nrN  ■'2. — The  accentuation  requires  that  niu'^'a'?  be  treated  as  a  sep- 
arate clause,  n_i_n  being  understood;  and  this  division  is  followed  by 
many  exegetes.  So  Bla.,  Mau.,  Klie.,  Ke.,  Pres.,  Brd.,  Or.,  et  al.  If, 
however,  the  present  text  be  retained,  the  first  of  four  lines  should  close 
with  "^njn.  So  B,  followed  by  Lu.,  Marck,  Pem.,  Lowth,  Ew.,  Hd., 
Pu.,  Wri.,  We.,  Now.,  GASm.,  et  al.  Either  of  the  emendations  sug- 
gested would  permit  a  similar  arrangement. — nu'K-\n]  Om.  the  final  n,  or, 
with  van  H.,  change  it  to  a  a  and  attach  it  to  the  following  word.  Cf. 
TNin  pon,  2  Ch.  311".  Houb.  rds.  rxnS. — pinu-p]  From  nic-;  without 
3  an  ace.  of  manner.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "'■  ^  ^'^K  The  Vrss.  diverge  more  or 
less  from  the  thought  of  ifl,  but  there  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing 
that  they  had  a  different  text. — 6'^  Why  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  was 
inserted  at  this  point,  there  seems  to  be  no  means  of  determining.  Marti 
thinks  it  may  have  a  bearing  on  the  promises  of  chs.  7  /.  It  is  more  prob- 
ably a  reminder  by  a  pious  scribe  that  such  blessings  as  are  promised  in 
the  preceding  context  are  conditioned  on  the  faithfulness  to  Yahweh  of 
those  who  desire  them. 


3.   A  NEW  ERA  (chs.  7/). 

This  part  of  the  book  consists  of  the  recital  of  an  incident  that 
gave  Zechariah  an  occasion  for  resuming  his  prophetical  activity, 
and  a  series  of  oracles  setting  forth  what  Yahweh  requires  of  his 
people  and  what  he  purposes  to  do  for  them  in  the  given  circum- 
stances. 

a.    An  inquiry  from  Bethel  {f"^). 

The  people  of  Bethel  send  to  Jerusalem  to  inquire  of  the  priests 
and  the  prophets  whether  they  shall  continue  to  observe  the  fast  of 
the  fifth  month. 

1.  It  was  in  the  fourth  year  of  Darius,  that  is,  the  year  518  B.C. 
The  king  had  some  time  previously  overthrown  his  most  trouble- 
some enemies  and  was  now  engaged  in  strengthening  his  hold  on 
his  vast  empire.  Perhaps,  as  has  been  suggested,  he  was  in  Egypt 
when  the  prophecies  that  follow  were  written.  Cf.  p.  23.  More 
precisely,  it  was  the  fourth  of  the  ninth  month  of  the  given  year,  or 


7'*'  195 

more  than  two  years  after  work  was  begun  on  the  temple,  when  the 
incident  to  be  described  took  place.  CJ.  Hg.  i^^.  The  ninth 
month  was  later  called  Kislew  (Ne.  i^),  as  the  reader  is  informed 
in  a  gloss.  The  clause,  the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  Zechariah,  by 
which  the  month  and  the  day  of  the  month  are  separated  from  the 
year  to  which  they  belong,  is  also  an  interpolation. — 2.  On  the  day 
named  a  person,  or  persons,  sent  one  or  more  others  on  a  certain 
mission.  The  verse  has  been  variously  translated,  but  never  very 
satisfactorily.  It  is  doubtful  if  the  present  text  can  be  so  rendered 
as  to  avoid  objections.  Thus,  if  Bethel  be  made  the  subject,* 
there  is  the  objection  that  places  were  not  personified  by  the  He- 
brews, except  in  poetry.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  word,  either 
as  a  proper  name  or  an  appellative  for  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  be 
treated  as  the  destination  of  the  mission, |  the  criticism  is  that  there 
was  at  this  time  no  sanctuary  at  Bethel,  and  the  one  at  Jerusalem 
was  called  the  house,  not  of  God,  but  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Hg.  i^  Zc. 
f  8^.  This  being  the  case,  the  later  exegetes  have  resorted  to  emen- 
dation, but  thus  far  they  have  not  proposed  a  reading  that  has  found 
general  acceptance.  The  most  promising  place  to  look  for  help  is 
in  S^'*  ^•,  where  Zechariah  gives  his  answer  to  the  specific  question 
that  had  been  propoimded.  Now,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that, 
in  vv.  ^^  ^-  of  this  passage,  a  clause  of  the  verse  under  consideration 
is  twice  repeated.  This  repeated  clause,  however,  is  not  the  most 
important  feature  of  the  passage.  More  significant  is  the  predic- 
tion that  in  the  future  men  will  come  to  Jerusalem  to  worship  the 
God  of  the  Hebrews  by  cities  and  nations;  for  this  indicates  that 
those  addressed  were  representatives  of  a  place,  and  that  therefore 
the  name  Bethel  is  correct  and  genuine.  Moreover,  it  suggests  that 
the  original  reading  was,  the  men  of  Bethel  sent.  The  verb  does  not 
require  that  its  object  be  expressed.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that 
the  prophet  left  it  indefinite.  The  Massoretic  text  gives  two  names 
which,  if  they  are  genuine,  must  be  interpreted  as  designating  the 
persons  chosen  to  represent  the  little  city.  The  first,  Sarezer,  which 
seems  to  be  an  abbreviated  form  of  a  Babylonian  compound,^ 


*  So  Bla.,  Klie.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  Pres.,  Brd.,  Pu.,  Or.,  et  al. 

t  So  <S  B  &  S,  Jcr.,  Lu.,  AV.,  Marck,  Grot.,  Seek.,  Lowth,  Rosenm.,  et  al. 

X  Cj.  2  K.  19"  Je.  39^. 


196  ZECHARIAH 

would  imply  that  the  bearer  of  it,  if  a  Jew,  was  born  in  Babylonia; 
the  second  that  its  owmer  was  of  Palestinian  birth.  Cf.  i  Ch.  2", 
These  two,  or  others  unnamed,  were  sent,  as  is  taken  for  granted, 
to  Jerusalem,  first  of  all,  according  to  the  Massoretic  text,  to  entreat 
Yahweh,  that  is,  to  seek  his  favour  by  the  presentation  of  the  cus- 
tomary offering.  Now,  it  is  altogether  probable  that  the  offering 
was  brouglit.  It  would  please  the  priests,  if  it  did  not  affect  Yah- 
weh. But  the  absence  of  a  connective  at  the  beginning  of  v.  ^ 
leaves  room  for  doubt  whether  the  prophet  is  responsible  for  this 
item.  Perhaps,  however,  the  missing  connective,  since  the  Syriac 
Version  has  one,  should  be  supplied. 

3.  The  ultimate  object  of  the  mission  was  to  say  to  the  priests 
of  the  house  of  Yahweh,  the  unfinished  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  to 
the  prophets.  Haggai  and  Zechariah  are  the  only  prophets  of  the 
time  whose  names  have  been  preserved,  but,  according  to  8",  there 
must  have  been  others.  These  prophets  are  apparently  here  placed 
on  an  equality  with  the  priests.  The  passage  implies  also  that 
the  two  classes  were  on  as  good  terms  with  each  other  as  they  were 
when  the  Deuteronomic  law  was  promulgated,  and  that  therefore 
they  could  unite  in  a  decision.  The  cjuestion  to  be  decided  is. 
Shall  I — the  little  city  speaks  through  its  envoy  or  envoys  as  a  unit 
— weep  in  the  fifth  month,  or  abstain,  as  I  have  done  now  how  many 
years  ?  This  question  was  a  natural  one.  The  fast  of  the  fifth 
month  commemorated  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  its  temple 
by  the  Babylonians.  Cf  2  K.  25^  ^-  Je.  52"  *•.*  It  had  been  ob- 
served ever  since  the  Jews  went  into  captivity  (v.  ^),  a  period  of 
nearly  .seventy  years.  Now,  however,  the  captivity  was  a  thing  of 
the  past,  and,  although  their  city  as  yet  had  no  wall,  it  was  begin- 
ning to  grow  and  the  temple  was  well  on  the  way  to  completion. 
These  facts  called  for  recognition  and  gratitude;  feelings  inconsist- 
ent with  the  continued  commemoration  of  former  misfortunes.  The 
people  of  Bethel  appear  to  have  been  the  first  to  realise  what  had 
taken  place.     At  any  rate,  they  were  the  first  to  move  in  the  matter; 

*  These  two  passages  do  not  exactly  .agree  on  the  date  of  the  destruction  of  the  city,  the 
former  putting  it  on  the  seventh,  the  latter  on  the  tenth  of  the  month.  The  Jews  explain  the 
discrepancy  by  saying  that  the  Babylonians  entered  the  temple  on  the  seventh  and  profaned  it 
until  the  ninth,  when  they  set  it  on  fire  and  left  it  to  burn  until  the  tenth.  Cj.  Rodkinson, 
Babylonian  Talmud;  Taanilh,  86. 


7*""  197 

which  was  greatly  to  their  credit,  for  this  movement  marks  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  new  spirit  in  Judah,  a  faith  in  Yahweh  and  the  future 
which  the  prophet  had  long  been  trying  to  kindle.  The  question, 
therefore,  though  in  form  a  request  for  instruction,  is  really  a  pro- 
posal for  the  abolition  of  the  now  meaningless  fast. 

1,  In  I'  it  was  found  that,  for  some  reason,  the  formula,  "The  word  of 
Yahweh  came  to  Zechariah,"  etc.,  had  been  inserted  between  the  date 
and  the  incident  to  which  it  belonged.  This  verse  has  been  expanded  in 
the  same  way,  but  not  to  the  same  extent;  for  the  pedigree  of  the  prophet 
has  been  omitted,  also  the  meaningless  inf.  hdkS.  The  clause  betrays 
its  origin,  however,  not  only  by  its  position  between  the  items  of  the  date, 
but  by  its  form,  the  name  of  the  prophet  taking  the  place  of  the  pron.  of 
the  first  person.  Cf.  v.  <  S'-  's. — iSoon]  Sometimes  (20  mss.)  vSoaa. 
For  the  reasons  for  regarding  this  word,  like  the  aaa'  E'ln  xin  of  i',  as 
an  interpolation,  see  the  critical  note  on  the  latter.  In  Now.'s  transla- 
tion the  latter  half  of  this  verse  appears  in  Italics,  as  if  it  were  of  second- 
ary origin;  but  this  is  doubtless  a  printer's  error,  for  the  author  recog- 
nises in  his  comments  the  genuineness  of  the  entire  date. — 2.  Ssni^] 
Not  Sn-jT'^,  as  in  most  mss.  and  edd.  There  is  no  sense  or  construction 
in  which  the  house  of  God  could  be  used  in  this  connection.  Cf.  BDB. 
On  van  H.'s  suggestion,  Sn-\b'>  r\>i,  see  2V1''  S'^.  The  difficulty  of  con- 
struing the  word,  even  as  a  proper  name,  has  given  rise  to  an  attempt  to 
explain  it  as  the  name  of  a  god  and,  as  such,  a  component  of  the  name  of 
the  first  of  the  individuals  here  mentioned.  There  was,  it  seems,  a  god 
worshipped  in  western  Asia  under  a  name  that  the  Assyrians  wrote  Ba- 
ai-ti-ili.  Cf.  Winckler,  AF.,  ii,  10^.  Zimmern  (KAT.^,  438)  identi- 
fies him  with  the  divinity  whom  Philo  Byblius  calls  ^airvXas,  the  second 
son  of  Ovpav6s  and  Tij.  We.  takes  for  granted  that,  since  the  name  ixnic', 
Ass.  Sar-usur,  lacks  a  subject  such  as  it  has,  e.  g.,  in  Nabu-Mr-usur  and 
Nergal-Sar-usur,  Ssn^a  must  be  the  missing  component;  in  other  words, 
that  the  first  name  was  Baitil-Sar-usur.  So  also  Peiser.  This  conjec- 
ture at  first  sight  seems  to  be  supported  by  the  occurrence  in  a  commer- 
cial document  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  I  of  the  (Phoenician)  name  Bit- 
ili-nuri  (Hilprecht,  Babylonian  Expedition,  ix,  60,  76),  and  it  is  adopted 
by  Marti  and  Kittel.  Cf.  DB.  There  are,  however,  weighty  objections 
to  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  assumes  that  the  name  Sareser  is  defective; 
whereas,  ace.  to  Schrader  {KAT."^,  329/.),  names  of  the  class  to  which 
this  is  supposed  to  belong  were  sometimes  abbreviated  by  the  Assyrians 
and  Babylonians,  and  ace.  to  2  K.  19"=  Is.  37^8,  this  one  was  believed 
by  the  Jews  to  have  been  in  actual  use  among  the  Assyrians.  Even  in 
Je.  39'-  ",  where  Nergal  precedes,  the  two  are  not  written  as  one  name 
like  Nebuzardan  and  Nebushazban.     If,  however,  secondly,  it  be  granted 


198  ZECHARIAH 

that  the  name  is  defective,  there  is  still  good  ground  for  denying  that 
'^Nr.^a  is  the  missing  component;  for,  although  it  seems  to  be  true  that 
the  people  of  the  West  used  Bitili  just  as  the  Babylonians  did  the  names 
of  their  gods  in  the  formation  of  personal  names,  it  has  not  been  shown 
that  they  made  such  hybrid  compounds,  half  Phoenician  and  half  Baby- 
lonian as  Bit-ili-sar-ustir.  If,  therefore,  the  two  words  are  retained,  they 
must,  apparently,  be  treated  as  separate  names.  The  case  is  put  hypo- 
thetically  because  there  is  some  ground  for  suspecting  the  genuineness, 
not  only  of  -iXN-iu',  but  of  iSd  dji.  (i)  They  have  the  position  of  ob- 
jects, but  not  the  sign  (pn)  of  the  definite  ace.  CJ.  Je.  26".  (2)  They 
suit  the  following  no  better  than  the  preceding  context.  (3)  They  are 
not  necessary  to  an  intelligible  rendering  for  the  rest  of  the  clause.  There 
is  only  one  objection  to  accepting  the  conclusion  to  which  these  indica- 
tions point,  viz.,  that  it  seems  impossible  to  account  for  these  names  ex- 
cept on  the  supposition  that  they  are  genuine.  The  key  to  the  difficulty 
is  found  in  g*,  which,  for  hSd  dj-i,  has  ^,-i^ii  =  ja  3-1,  the  title  given 
to  Sareser  in  Je.  393-  's.  This  reading  suggests  that  these  names  arose 
from  a  gloss  by  some  one  who  believed,  as  did  the  Jews  of  the  time  of 
Jerome,  that  the  inquiry  concerning  the  fast  came  from  Babylon  and  was 
brought  by  proselytes,  the  name  and  title  used  being  borrowed  from  Je. 
39.  When  this  gloss,  originally  n'^cn  jd  ai  ixntj*,  was  inserted  other 
changes  seem  to  have  been  made.  The  original  text  was  probably  n^r'i 
Snitij  TJX. — DJi]  If  the  original  gloss  had  JD  3i  (van  H.,  31)  perhaps 
(&  (B,  Ap^eaeip;  A,  Ap^eaeaip),  which,  ace.  to  Marti,  represents  irj;  nj,'3-\N 
(Aram.,  ido^n),  may  have  come  from  the  similar  title  D^iD  3i. — 3. 
icn'-i]  Rd.,  with  *,  idn'^i.— .n>3'^]  Rd.,  with  Kenn.  150,  155,  (S  »  (T, 
n'33. — D''N''3jn  Sxi]  It  is  possible  that  these  words  are  an  addition  to  the 
text.  The  prophet  did  not  need  any  warrant  from  men  for  replying  to  a 
question  addressed  to  the  priests.  Cf.  v.  ^ — -icn'?^]  Om.  with  <6'-  ft. — 
nD3Nn]  <&  has  el  (Ar),  or  ^  (Q.),  ela-eXi^XvOev  &Se  =  na  N3n,  an  evident, 
but  none  the  less  interesting  error.  See  also  iiroiTjffev  for  ^t'CJJ. — -irjn] 
Ace.  to  Ges.  5  "3,  an  adverbial  inf.  abs.  Similarly  Ew.  s;  2*"  «J);  Ko.  5  «»•; 
but  (6'-  B  ft  ®  all  seem  to  have  read  nuxn.  So  Houb. — nr]  Adverbial, 
but  not  in  this  case,  as  Ges.  §  i3«-  R-  3  (6)  puts  it,  an  enclitic.  Translate 
710W  or  already.  Cf.  Nrd.  k  s'"-  *. — noj]  With  -7:-  in  close  connection.  Cf. 
Ges.  5"»-  *  «iK 

b.    A  series  of  oracles  (7^-8^'). 

They  are  four  in  number.  All  of  them  but  the  third  are  intro- 
duced by  the  characteristic  formula,  "Then  came  the  word  of 
Yahweh  of  Hosts  to  me."  The  general  subject  is  the  restoration 
of  Judah  to  the  favour  of  Yahweh.     The  first  deals  with 


7*"""  199 


(l)    THE   TEACHING   OF   THE   PAST    (y^'"). 

The  prophet  holds  that  fasting  is  valueless  as  compared  with 
the  social  virtues,  and  that  the  neglect  of  these  latter  was  the  cause 
of  the  banishment  of  his  people  from  their  country. 

4.  The  statement,  Thetij  lit.,  and,  came  the  word  of  Yahwek  of 
Hosts  to  me,  would  naturally  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  this 
oracle  was  delivered  soon,  if  not  immediately,  after  the  arrival 
of  the  deputation  from  Bethel,  that  is,  on  or  about  the  fourth  of  the 
ninth  month.  There  are  those,  however,  who  hold  that  the  ques- 
tion must  have  been  suggested  by  the  approach  of  the  fast  men- 
tioned and  laid  before  the  priests  and  the  prophets  previous  to  the 
date  on  which  it  was  to  be  observed,  the  seventh  or  the  tenth  of  the 
fifth  month.  So  Wellhausen,  who  therefore  treats  the  given  date 
as  that,  not  of  the  appearance  of  the  deputation,  but  of  Zechariah's 
reply  to  their  inquiry.  To  this  interpretation  there  are  at  least  two 
serious  objections:  (i)  It  is  forced  and  unnatural;  and  (2)  it  is  easier 
to  explain  the  appearance  of  the  deputation  from  Bethel  four 
months  after  the  fast  than  the  discussion  of  their  mission  by  Zech- 
ariah  that  long  after  it  had  been  accomplished.  The  prophets  were 
usually  the  first  to  express  themselves  on  any  matter  that  interested 
the  community.  If  further  explanation  is  needed,  perhaps  it  will 
be  found  in  the  supposition  (Nowack)  that  there  had  arisen  at 
Bethel,  on  the  occasion  of  its  last  recurrence,  a  dispute  over  the 
propriety  of  longer  observing  a  fast  commemorating  the  destruction 
of  the  temple,  and  that,  after  much  discussion,  the  parties  had 
agreed  to  submit  the  question  to  the  authorities  at  Jerusalem. — 5. 
The  message  received  by  the  prophet  is  addressed,  not  to  the  priests 
alone,  or  the  inhabitants  of  Bethel,  but  to  all  the  people  of  the  land. 
It  runs  like  a  passage  from  one  of  the  older  prophets.  When  ye 
have  fasted  and  lamented  in  the  fifth  month,  and  in  the  seventh 
month,  now  seventy  years,  was  it  for  me,  pray,  that  ye  fasted  ?  The 
fast  of  the  seventh  month,  according  to  tradition,  was  observed  on 
the  second  of  the  month*  as  a  memorial  of  the  bloody  day  on  which 

*  The  tradition  is  that  Gcdaliah  was  murdered  on  the  first  of  the  month,  but,  as  this  was  a 
feast-day,  the  fast  was  appointed  for  the  second.  This  tradition,  however,  is  e\ndently  based 
on  the  inference  that,  because  in  2  K.  25  and  Je.  41  the  day  of  the  assassination  is  not  given, 
B'ln  is  to  be  rendered  "new  moon."  C/.  i'.  The  Karaites  are  said  to  have  celebrated  this  fast 
on  the  twenty-fourth  of  the  month,  basing  their  custom  upon  Ne.  9'. 


200  ZECHARIAH 

Gedaliah,  whom  Nebuchadrezzar  had  appointed  governor  of  Judea 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  was  assassinated  and  the  Jews 
fled  to  Egypt.  Cf.  2  K.  25^  Je.  41^^-.  This  fast,  also,  seems  to 
have  been  mentioned  here  because,  having  occurred  during  the 
progress  of  the  discussion  at  Bethel,  it  could  not  well  be  overlooked. 
— Both  of  these  fasts  had  been  observed  since  the  beginning  of  the 
Exile,  or  since  Jerusalem  was  taken  in  586,  and  the  date  of  this 
oracle  is  517  B.C.,  now  about  seventy  years. — This  fact,  however, 
did  not  commend  the  f asters  to  the  favour  of  Yahweh,  because  the 
abstinence  they  practised  and  the  lamentations  they  uttered  showed 
no  promise  of  betterment,  being  an  expression,  not  of  godly  sorrow 
for  past  ofifences,  but  of  selfish  regret  for  the  loss  of  their  country 
and  their  liberty.  They  pitied  themselves,  but  they  had  not 
learned  to  fear  Yahweh. — 6.  This  being  the  case,  it  did  not  matter 
whether  they  ate  or  refrained  from  eating.  This  verse  completes 
the  thought.  The  prophet,  speaking  for  Yahweh,  has  just  said 
in  substance,  "Ye  have  fasted  for  yourselves";  he  now  adds,  and 
when,  or  if  and  whenever,  henceforth,  ye  eat  and  drink,  instead  of 
fasting,  is  it  not  ye  that  are  eating  and  ye  that  are  drinking  ?  and 
he  might  have  added,  for  it  is  what  he  meant,  "to  fill  your  owti 
bellies."     Cf.  1  Cor.  8«^ 

7.  This,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  is  a  familiar  doctrine.  It 
is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  Zechariah  should  cite  the  older  proph- 
ets in  this  connection.  Are  not  these,  he  asks,  the  things  that  Yah- 
weh proclaimed  by  the  former  prophets  ?  The  things  in  question  are 
not,  as  one  might  carelessly  infer,  the  things  already  said,  but  thoee 
he  has  yet  to  say.  Cf.  vv.  "  ^•.  They  had  been  said  many  times 
when  Jerusalem  was  peopled  and  secure,  also  its  cities  round  about 
it.  The  period  to  which  the  prophet  refers  is,  of  course,  that  be- 
fore the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  devastation  of  the  sur- 
rounding country  by  the  Babylonians.  Indeed,  it  is  probable  that 
he  was  thinking  of  conditions  some  time  before  that  melancholy 
event,  for  it  was  when  the  Shephelah,  the  hilly  region  that  separates 
the  Judean  highlands  from  the  Philistine  plain,  and  the  Negeb,  the 
rolling  country  south  of  Hebron,  belonged  to  Judah  and  were  in- 
habited.*— 8.  The  message  of  the  former  prophets  should  imme- 

*  For  a  graphic  description  of  the  Shephelah  and  its  history,  see  GASm.,  HG.,  201  ij.,  of  the 
Nfgeb,  278  If. 


7'-"  20I 

diately  follow,  as,  ^^nthout  doubt,  it  did  in  the  original  oracle.  Now, 
however,  there  intervenes  another  introductory  clause  inserted  by 
some  one  who  was  misled  by  the  "Thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts" 
of  the  next  verse  to  suppose  that  the  prophet  was  still  speaking  in 
his  own  person.  This  clause  betrays  its  secondary  character,  not 
only  by  the  interruption  of  the  prophet's  thought,  but  by  the  form 
in  which  it  appears.  Zechariah  would  have  said,  not  to  Zechariah, 
but  to  me. — 9.  Nowack  and  others  regard  the  Thus  saith  Yahweh 
of  Hosts  with  which  this  verse  begins,  also,  as  an  addition  to  the 
original  text,  but  Wellhausen  retains  it,  and  with  reason,  for  the  ci- 
tation from  the  prophets  here,  as  in  i^,  needs  such  an  introductory 
formula,  as  a  part  of  it,  to  give  it  the  desired  solemnity. — The  mes- 
sage proper  consists  of  two  parts.  First,  certain  duties  growing  out 
of  social  relations  are  enjoined.  The  first  of  these  is  tme,  equal, 
justice,  especially  in  the  conduct  of  judicial  proceedings;  the  least 
that  could  be  required  of  members  of  the  same  community,  yet 
a  requirement  which,  to  judge  from  the  denunciations  of  the  proph- 
ets, was  almost  always  flagrantly  disregarded  among  the  Hebrews. 
The  second  is  kindness,  the  good- will  that  prompts  one  to  meet  one's 
fellows  more  than  half-way.  The  third  is  compassion,  active  sym- 
pathy with  those  in  any  species  of  misfortune. — 10.  These  posi- 
tive injunctions  are  followed  by  a  pair  of  admonitions.  The  first 
is  equivalent  to  a  repetition  of  the  injunction  concerning  compas- 
sion, with  an  application  of  it  to  different  classes  of  unfortunates. 
Oppress  not  a  widow,  or  an  orphan,  or  a  stranger,  or  a  sufferer,  the 
last  term  including  the  poor,  the  sick,  etc.  The  second  is  more  gen- 
eral, but  at  the  same  time  more  radical,  nor  devise  evil  one  toward 
another  in  your  hearts.  It  is  a  negative  putting  of  the  Golden  Rule, 
the  observance  of  which  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  social  moral- 
ity. Cf.  8^'.  This,  according  to  Zechariah,  was  the  teaching  of 
the  former  prophets.  He  does  not  pretend  to  say  that  all  or  any  of 
them  expressed  themselves  in  the  precise  language  that  he  employs, 
but  that  this  was  the  gist  of  their  instruction  on  the  subject  with 
which  he  is  now  dealing.  He  could  easily  have  substantiated  such 
a  statement;  for  there  is  hardly  one  of  the  prophets  before  the  Ex- 
ile who  does  not  condemn  the  tendency  to  ritualism  among  his  peo- 
ple and  insist  on  the  practice  of  the  social  virtues.*    The  same  posi- 

*  Cj.  .\m.  26  ff-  521  «•  Ho.  6<fl-  Is.  I'off-  Mi.  aiff-  0^-  Je.  t'"-  Ez.  iS^a-. 


202  ZECHARIAH 

tion  is  taken  by  the  author  of  Is.  58'"'^ — vv.  '^  ^-  teach  a  different 
doctrine, — who,  like  Zechariah,  gives  especial  attention  to  fasting 
as  a  religious  exercise. 

11.  The  prophet,  having  indicated  what  his  predecessors  taught, 
proceeds  to  describe  the  way  in  which  their  instruction  was  re- 
ceived. This  he  does  in  a  succession  of  figures  which  produce  a 
climax.  In  the  first  place,  he  says  the  people  refused  to  listen,  took 
an  entirely  negative  attitude.  Cf.  1*.  This  is  the  first  stage  in  the 
development  of  obstinacy.*  They  next  stubbornly  turned  their 
hacks,  showed  positive  disrespect  to  the  messengers  of  Yahweh.f 
Thirdly,  they  stopped,  lit.,  dulled  their  ears,  so  as  not  to  hear,  ren- 
dered futile  the  best  efforts  of  the  prophets  to  instruct  them.  J — 12. 
These  manifestations,  at  first  the  occasional  and  temporary  ebul- 
litions of  an  unstable  temper,  finally  became  the  uniform  expression 
of  an  utterly  rebellious  character,  the  people  having,  in  the  words 
of  the  prophet,  made  their  hearts  as  adamant.^  It  was  their  de- 
liberate and  unchangeable  purpose  not  to  hear  the  instruction  that 
Yahweh  of  Hosts  had  sent  them.  The  text  unnecessarily  identifies 
this  instruction  with  the  words  of  v.  ^,  saying  that  these  words 
were  sent  through  his  (Yahweh's)  Spirit.  No  doubt  Zechariah  be- 
lieved that  his  predecessors  were  divinely  inspired;  but  since,  like 
Haggai  (2^),  he  elsewhere  (4"  6^)  seems  to  refer  to  the  Spirit  of 
Yahweh  as  if  he  were  thinking  of  Yahweh  himself,  and,  except  in 
the  visions,  represents  Yahweh  as  communicating  immediately 
with  his  messengers  (i"  6^,  etc.),  one  is  warranted  in  suspecting  the 
genuineness  of  this  phrase  also,  and  reading,  as  in  v. '',  simply  by, 
lit.,  by  the  hand  of,  the  former  prophets. — When  it  became  evident 
that  his  people  were  only  confirmed  in  their  evil  ways  by  his  efforts 
through  these  successive  messengers  to  save  them,  his  patience,  to 
speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  became  exhausted,  and  there  was 
great  wrath  from  Yahweh  of  Hosts. — 13.  The  result  was  disas- 
trous to  the  objects  of  this  wrath.  //  came  to  pass  that,  because, 
when  he  (Yahweh)  called,  they  (the  fathers)  did  not  hear, — There 
follows  as  an  apodosis  in  the  Massoretic  text,  so  shall  they  call,  and 
I  will  not  hear,  said  Yahweh,  but  there  are  several  reasons  for  re- 
garding these  words  as  a  gloss,  two  or  three  of  which  may  be  given 

*  C/.  Je.  s' 85  96/6  n'O.  t  Q.  Ho.  4>8  Je.  5^  628.  J  C/.  Is.  6'"  Je.  s^. 

§  Cj.  Ex.  815  Ps.  9s"  ;  also  of  the  neck,  2  K.  17H  Je.  ip's  Ne.  qH-m. 


7""  203 

in  this  connection,  (i)  They  obstruct  the  natural  course  of  thought 
without  adding  anything  essential  to  the  passage;  (2)  they  are  by 
Yahweh,  and  not  about  him;  and  (3)  they  can  easily  be  explained 
as  a  reminiscence  of  Pr.  i^*^-.  CJ.  especially  v.  ^*.  For  further 
details,  see  the  critical  notes. — 14.  The  original  apodosis  is  found 
in  this  verse.  It  reads,  not  "I,"  like  the  preceding, — for  the  subject 
should  be  the  same  as  that  of  the  verb  call, — but  he,  scattered  them 
to  all  the  nations,  the  many  nations,  that  they  had  not  known,  in  the 
foreign  countries  to  which  they  were  deported  by  the  Babylonians. 
On  the  phraseology,  see  Dt.  28^^  Je.  16^^,  etc.  Thus  the  land  be- 
came so  desolate  behind  them,  after  their  removal,  that  none  went  to 
and  fro,  and  they  made  a  pleasant  land  a  waste.  CJ.  Ju.  5®  Je.  12^° 
Ez.  35'.  The  prophet  probably  did  not  expect  to  be  taken  liter- 
ally;— there  must  have  been  a  few  who  remained  in  the  country; — 
but  it  is  clear  from  Je.  ds>ff.  that  it  was  pretty  nearly  stripped  of  its 
inhabitants. 

4.  nivxax]  %  uT  om.,  as  in  48  6';  but  see  8'-  '«. — 6.  nicDi]  The  inf. 
abs.  for  the  impf.  with  1-  Cf.  Ges.  §  '"•  <  ("). — nn]  Rd.,  with  9  Kenn.  mss., 
H  &  SI,  nr.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — ■'jncx]  For  ■'jincx,  the  read- 
ing in  25  Kenn.  mss.  One  of  three  cases  of  the  use  of  a  sf.  with  pf.  2 
pi.  Cf.  Ges.  \  5'-  »  «^'.  On  the  construction,  see  Ges.  5  »7-  <.  R.  3._,jk] 
An  emphatic  addition  to  the  sf.  Cf.  Ges.  §"6.  2  (a). — 6.  cSonh]  When 
the  relation  of  a  nominal  predicate  to  the  subject  is  that  of  the  general  to 
the  particular,  it  wants  the  article;  but  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  two  are 
of  equal  connotation,  the  predicate  may  take  an  art.  or  a  sf.  to  mark  its 
definiteness.  Cf.  v.  '  as  emended;  Ges.  §'26-  ">■  <»)  R-;  Dr.  §"5  (7)._7. 
pn]  This  word  has  been  treated  as  a  sign  of  the  emphatic  nominative.  So 
de  D.,  Dru.,  New.,  Rosenm.,  Lowe,  el  al.  The  passages  cited  to  support 
this  opinion,  however,  are  mostly  of  doubtful  application.  Those  in  this 
and  the  preceding  book,  Hg.  2*-  "  Zc.  8",  can  all  be  explained  in  other 
ways.  Nor  is  it  necessary  in  this  case  to  supply  a  vb.  such  as  y\'>,  ni;*j? 
or  yctt",  as  many  have  done.  So  Marck,  Pem.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Koh., 
Ke.,  Pres.,  Pu.,  Brd.,  Wri.,  et  al.  It  is  better,  with  (&  &,  to  rd.  hSn. 
So  Seek.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  Cf.  Ges.  § "'•  i-  R-  '.— 3r^]  For  oott'% 
the  regular  construction.  Cf.  Ges. §'"•  ';  YLo.h^'^'. — 8.  This  verse  is 
omitted  also  by  Oort,  Or.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Rothstein  (Jojachin,  38). 
Note  that  nxjx  is  omitted,  as  in  v.'.  Cf.  8>-  ". — 9.  On  the  genuine- 
ness of  niN3S — no,  see  the  comments. — ncxS]  Om.,  with  Kenn.  4,  201, 
05NAB  ^^  here  as  in  6'^,  the  only  other  place  where  it  appears  in  Zechariah 
after   -isn  ^s. — rco^,  pya'n]  Pausal  forms.    Cf.  Ges.  §"■<  <*>. — D'om] 


204  ZECHARIAH 

On  the  pi.,  see  Ges.  §  isi-  i-  R-  (&).— 10.  nj]  Rd.,  with  22  mss.,  (g  B  »  S, 
■\ji. — rn.s  C'n]  This  idiom  has  already  occurred  twice  (v. '  3'°),  but  both 
times  in  so  simple  a  form  that  it  did  not  require  explanation.  In  both 
cases  r''N  was  used  distributively  in  apposition  with  the  subject  of  the 
clause  in  which  it  stood;  the  most  frequent  construction.  There  are 
cases  in  which  its  relation  to  the  conte.xt  is  difficult  to  determine.  One  of 
the  most  difficult  is  in  Gn.  15"',  which  Bu.  {Urgeschichie,  285),  translates, 
"He  laid  each  (animal),  its  one  part  over  against  the  other."  The  con- 
struction is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  elliptical.  Supply  the  pi.  suf. 
after  10%  and  the  result  is,  "He  placed  (them)  each  with  one  part  over 
against  the  other,"  r^N  being  an  appositive  of  the  object  of  the  vb.,  as  in 
S'".  The  peculiar  construction  found  here  occurs  only  once  elsewhere, 
viz.,  Gn.  95,  where  vns  v-'H  io  is  generally  rendered,  as  in  AV.,  "at  the 
hand  of  ever)'  man's  brother."  So  De.,  Di.,  Wri.,  Dr.,  et  al.  Bu.  ob- 
jects to  this  rendering  because,  he  says,  it  means  only  that  all  men  are 
brothers.  He  insists  on  the  reciprocal  significance  of  the  idiom,  explain- 
ing it  as  only  a  later  and  more  compact  form  of  vnx  ^^c  r^N.  He 
therefore  translates  the  whole  clause,  "From  ever}-  beast  will  I  demand  it 
(your  blood),  and  from  men,  from  one  another  (from  men  reciprocally) 
will  I  demand  the  soul  of  men."  Cf.  Urgeschichte,  288.  Similarly 
Gunkel,  Holzinger.  This  translation,  in  spite  of  the  parenthetical  para- 
phrases, is  not  entirely  clear.  The  phrase  "from  men  reciprocally"  is 
especially  perplexing.  It  cannot,  of  course,  mean  that  the  reciprocity  is 
to  be  between  God  and  men.  If,  however,  it  is  to  be  among  men,  the 
only  idea  suggested  is  that  men  are  to  require  of  one  another  the  blood 
of  a  slain  fellow,  the  parties  being  the  avenger  and  the  murderer.  Now, 
this  may  have  been  the  thought  of  the  Heb.  author,  but,  if  it  was,  he  contra- 
dicted himself  in  the  effort  to  express  it;  for,  if  rns  b'^n  n^o  =  vnx  td  t'^n, 
Yahweh  says  in  the  main  clause  that  he  will  make  requirement  for  blood, 
but  in  the  phrase  in  question  that  men  will  do  so.  In  other  words  the 
distributive  U'\s  is  treated  as  if  the  vb.  were  not  rT^N,  7  will  demand,  but 
lunT,  they  (men)  will  demand.  The  contradiction  can  be  remedied,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  above  equation  is  correct,  by  removing  the  phrase 
to  the  end  of  the  clause,  or  treating  it  as  a  marginal  gloss  to  the  whole  of 
it.  Then  u'^n  will  be  an  appositive  of  dinhs,  and,  like  it,  in  the  gen.; 
and  the  whole  will  read,  "  From  the  hands  of  men  will  I  demand  the  lives 
of  men  (one's  life  from  the  hand  of  another)."  The  object  of  the  gloss- 
ator was  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that,  while  in  the  first  instance  the 
slayer  and  the  slain  are  widely  unlike,  in  the  second  they  belong  to  the 
same  species.  The  construction  of  u"n  is  that  in  which  it  is  found,  with- 
out rns,  in  Gn.  42",  which  should  be  rendered,  not  as  it  is  by  Bu.  (/.  c, 
285),  "to  return  their  money  to  each  one  into  his  sack,"  but,  "to  return 
their  money,  each  one's  (money)  to  his  sack."  The  object  of  this  dis- 
cussion was  to  determine  whether  vn.s  r'N  i-c  could  be  treated  as  the 


7*""  205 

equivalent  of  vns  ts  u'sx.  If,  as  has  been  shown,  it  can,  in  the  proper 
position,  there  is  reason  for  supposing  that  Zechariah,  although  in  8"  he 
uses  inyi  ny^  n«  u-\x,  here  preferred  the  more  concise  vnN  b^^n  nj?n. 
There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  in  both  cases. 
The  difference  between  the  two  is  no  greater  or  more  significant  than  that 
between  "evil  one  against  another"  and  "evil  against  one  another." 
Nor  can  one  find  any  fault  with  the  construction,  since,  if  the  regular 
form  were  substituted  for  the  one  actually  used,  c''N  could  be  construed, 
as  it  frequently  is,  as  an  appositive  of  the  subject  of  the  clause.  Cf 
Ges.  ^33.  1  (<j),  ,  ^  has  the  equivalent  of,  vnN  *?>*  u-'in  ny-i,  but  ^'s  ren- 
dering favours  IJJ.     See  also  uJ. 

11.  ins]  Rd.,  with  (g^-  &  ®,  afjnj.— yicc-c]  So  as  not.  Cf.  Ges.  §  "^ 
J.  (d)  (I).— 12.  I'Dw-]  A  second  ace.  Cf.  Ges.  §  n'-  s  (o,— mirn]  (g, 
rod  v6fiov  [lov,  a  case  of  dittog.  in  the  translation.  Cf.  irvevfuira  avrov. 
— anann  nxi]  The  object  of  this  gloss  evidently  was  to  prevent  the  reader 
from  interpreting  ri-y^r^rt  in  the  sense  of  instruction,  and  require  him  to  dis- 
tinguish between  "the  Law"  and  "the  Prophets";  which,  of  course,  is 
contrary  to  the  teaching  of  Zechariah. — innj]  This  expression,  too,  must 
be  considered  a  gloss  because  it,  like  the  similar  additions  of  ul,  removes 
Yahweh  further  from  his  people  than  Zechariah  represents  him. — 13.  »n>i] 
The  Gk.  and  Syr.  translators  were  misled  by  the  gloss  at  the  end  of 
the  verse,  the  former  into  rendering  this  vb.  by  the  fut.,  and  the  latter  into 
translating  Kip  as  if  it  were  in  the  i  sg.  See  also  the  Eng.  Vrss.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  the  prophet  is  here  giving  the  result  of  the  obdu- 
racy of  his  people.  Now,  that  result,  as  appears  from  v.  •<,  when  the 
prophet  wrote,  was  a  matter  of  history.  Hence  •'hm  must  have  its  usual 
meaning,  while  the  vbs.  that  follow  should  also  refer  to  the  past.  Those 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  cannot  be  so  rendered.  Contra  New. 
This  fact  in  itself  is  sufficient  to  confirm  the  opinion  already  expressed 
in  the  comments,  to  the  effect  that  the  passage  to  which  they  belong  is 
an  interpolation.  See  also  icn  for  zh:,  which,  as  has  elsewhere  been 
noted  (i'  4^),  is  an  indication  of  ungenuineness. — Nip]  ^  adds  a  pro- 
nominal object  to  this  vb.,  and  (l^'AQfL  Jq  the  same  for  y^'zz-,  but  such 
additions  are  not  required  by  the  Heb.  idiom.  Cf.  Pr.  i^*  On  the 
vocalisation  of  the  latter  vb.,  see  Ges.  \"-^-  ^  (6). — 14.  b-i;'D>xi]  Since  the 
next  vb.  is  a  pf.,  the  i  of  this  one  should  be  pointed  as  1  cons.,  and  since 
in  the  protasis  the  speaker  was  the  prophet,  the  original  here  must  have 
been  oiyO'i.  The  person  was  changed  to  bring  this  vb.  into  harmony 
with  pc"»r!<  of  the  interpolated  passage  preceding.  There  is,  therefore, 
no  necessity  for  discussing  the  peculiar  vocalisation  of  M..  Cf.  Ges. 
^5  23.  3.  R.  s;  62.2  (c )  R.  a.—S;.]  Rd.,  with  <&  (els) ,  S.S.— 3V']  Bu.  justly 
claims  that  the  main  dichotomy  of  the  verse  should  be  at  this  point. — 
layc]  On  jc  privative,  see  Ges.  %  '"•  '  '"i'  o. — ncr'']  On  the  use  of 
S  instead  of  the  ace,  see  Ges.  ^  "'■  »  <«'  '»'. 


2o6  ZECHARIAH 


(2)    THE  PROMISE   OF  THE   FUTURE    (8*"®). 

The  prophet  announces  that  Yahweh  will  presently  return  to 
Jerusalem  to  bless  it  with  wonderful  prosperity,  and  that  thence- 
forth there  will  be  an  unbroken  covenant  between  him  and  its  in- 
habitants. The  paragraph  consists  of  five  declarations,  each  of 
which  is  introduced  by  a  Thus  saith  Yahweh  of  Hosts. 

If.  The  usual  introductory  foimula  is  followed  by  a  very  em- 
phatic assertion  of  the  divine  jealousy.  In  i"  ^'  this  sentiment  was 
found  to  have  a  twofold  reference,  manifesting  itself  in  sympathy 
or  compassion  on  the  one  side,  and  in  anger  or  vengeance  on  the 
other.  Here,  also,  both  sides  appear,  but  they  are  not  so  clearly 
distinguished.  First  Yahweh  says,  I  have  been  very  jealous  for 
Sion;  by  which  he  means  that  he  has  been  anxious  and  eager  to 
help  it  because  it  is  the  home  of  his  chosen  people.  At  the  same 
time  his  indignation  has  been  stirred  against  the  unnamed  oppres- 
sors who  have  devastated  it.  Very  furious,  he  declares,  has  been 
my  jealousy  concerning  it.  Cf.  1^^. — 3.  From  this  point  onward 
Yahweh,  forgetting  his  indignation,  reveals  only  the  tender  side  of 
his  jealousy.  He  begins  by  saying  that  he  will  now,  after  an  ab- 
sence of  seventy  years,  return  to  Sion,  and  the  form  of  the  verb  indi- 
cates that  he  intends  to  do  so  speedily,  that,  in  fact,  his  return  is  as 
good  as  accomplished.  Moreover,  this  is  to  be  a  final  reunion  be- 
tween him  and  his  people,  for  he  is  careful  to  say  that  he  will  abide, 
make  his  permanent  home,  in  Jerusalem.  The  latter  half  of  the 
verse  describes  in  the  briefest  terms  the  character  and  condition  of 
the  Jerusalem  of  the  future.  First,  says  Yahweh,  it  shall  be  called 
the  faithful  city.  Isaiah  (i^*)  described  the  faithful  city  as  "full  of 
justice,  where  righteousness  dwelt."  Zechariah,  to  judge  from  the 
preceding  chapter,  doubtless  had  the  same  idea.  Neither  of  them, 
however,  considered  this  a  complete  definition.  The  latter  would 
have  included  all  the  virtues  the  lack  of  which  had  brought  the 
wrath  of  Yahweh  upon  the  fathers.  In  vv.  ^"  ^-  ^'^  he  specifies  truth- 
fulness and  peacefulness  as  additional  requirements.  It  is  safe, 
therefore,  to  infer  that,  when  he  put  this  name  into  the  mouth  of 
Yahweh,  he  was  giving  expression  to  his  faith  that  the  time  was 


S'-'  207 

coming  when  the  people  of  Jerusalem  and  Judah  would  not  only 
worship  Yahweh  alone,  but  loyally  observe  all  the  precepts  he  had 
given  them  for  the  regulation  of  their  conduct  toward  one  another. 
There  follows  another  name  the  application  of  which  is  easily  mis- 
understood. The  sentence  in  which  it  occurs,  so  far  as  its  structure 
is  concerned,  is  evidently  parallel  with  the  one  just  discussed.  If, 
therefore,  it  were  complete,  it  would  read,  the  mountain  of  Yahweh 
of  Hosts  shall  be  called  the  holy  mountain.  It  is  not  so  clear  what 
is  meant  by  the  mountain  of  Yahweh.  At  first  sight  one  might  take 
it  as  meaning  the  hill  on  which  the  new  temple  was  being  erected; 
but  there  is  not  so  much  to  be  said  for  this  interpretation  as  might 
be  expected.  The  name  given  to  the  mountain  cannot  be  cited  in 
its  favour.  By  "the  holy  mountain,"  or  its  equivalent,  is  generally 
meant,  not  Mount  Moriah,*  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  but  either 
Jerusalem,  as  a  hilly  city  (Is.  27^^  66^",  etc.)  or  the  whole  hilly 
region  of  Judea.  Cf.  Is.  11"  Je.  37^^,  etc.  It  is  therefore  necessary 
to  take  it  in  one  of  these  senses  in  this  connection,  and,  in  view  of 
the  fondness  of  the  Hebrews  for  parallelism,  it  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  the  former  is  the  one  in  which  the  prophet  intended 
that  it  should  be  taken.  His  idea,  then,  is  that,  when  the  temple 
has  been  completed  and  Yahweh  has  returned  to  it,  the  whole 
city  will  be  sanctified  and  preserved  inviolate  by  his  presence. 
Thus  the  two  names  are  only  another  way  of  putting  the  famil- 
iar promise  of  v.  ^,  "they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their 
God." 

4.  The  presence  of  Yahweh  will  secure  to  his  people  peace  and 
prosperity.  One  result  of  such  conditions  will  be  that  there  shall 
again,  as  in  the  best  period  of  their  history,  sit  in  the  streets  of 
Jerusalem,  enjoying  the  ease  as  well  as  the  respect  to  which  they  are 
entitled,  old  men  and  women,  each  with  his  (or  her)  staff  in  his  (or 
her)  hand,  a  sign  and  symbol  of  that  best  of  Yahweh's  blessings, 
from  the  Hebrew's  stand-point,  multitude  of  days.  Cf.  Ex.  20^^ 
Dt.  4^°  Is.  65^"  Pr.  3^  etc.  The  picture  is  true  to  the  habits  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Palestine,  both  ancient  and  modern.  Cf.  i  Mac. 
14^.  Their  houses  are,  and  always  have  been,  so  dark  that  they 
have  been  accustomed  to  do  their  work  and  seek  their  pleasure  in 

*  So  Jer.,  Dru.,  Rosenm.,  Ke.,  Brd.,  Wri..  el  al. 


2o8  ZECHARIAH 

the  open  air. — 5.  The  prophet  completes  the  peaceful  picture  by 

describing  the  city  a-s  full  of  boys  and  girls  playing  in  the  streets. 
It  is  clear  that  he  is  here  predicting  an  era  of  large  families.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  whole  thought.  There  will  not  only  be  many 
children,  but  conditions  will  be  such  that  they  will  be  able  to  spend 
their  early  years  in  ideal  freedom  from  untimely  burdens.  Mean- 
while, according  to  3*",  those  of  middle  age  will  divide  their  time 
between  labour  and  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  their  exertions. 
— 6.  It  was  difficult  for  the  people  of  Zechariah's  time,  pinched  as 
they  were  by  poverty,  and  harassed  by  their  neighbours,  to  believe 
that  such  blessings  were  in  store  for  them  and  their  country.  Yah- 
weh  rebukes  them  for  their  lack  of  faith.  If  it  is  difficult,  lit.,  won- 
derful, in  the  eyes  of  the  remnant  of  this  people,  he  says,  in  my  eyes 
also  it  will  he  difficult!?  The  last  clause  is  usually  treated  as  a 
simple  question,  but  in  the  original  the  construction  indicates  that 
the  prophet  intended  to  give  it  an  ironical  turn.  See  further  the 
critical  notes. — 7.  In  his  final  declaration  Yahweh  more  fully  re- 
veals his  plan  for  increasing  the  population  of  Judea.  He  will  not 
only  bless  those  already  there  with  sons  and  daughters,  but  he  will 
reinforce  them  from  the  regions  to  which  he  scattered  their  fathers. 
I  will  save  my  people,  he  says,  from  the  country  of  the  rising,  and 
from  the  country  of  the  setting  sun.  The  eastern  country,  of  course, 
is  Babylonia.  The  western  is  probably  Egypt.  Cf  Is.  11"  *  27'^ 
etc. — 8.  From  both  he  will  bring  back  the  exiled  Jews  and  they 
shall  abide,  dwell  without  further  disturbance,  and  he  with  them, 
in  Jerusalem  and  the  surrounding  country. f  A  guarantee  for  the 
permanence  of  the  new  order  is  found  in  the  renewed  covenant  to 
which  reference  has  already  been  made.  They  shall  be  to  me  a 
people,  says  Yahweh,  atid  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  in  faithfulness 
and  righteousness. X  Note  that  the  terms  are  the  same  for  both 
parties.  They  are  both  bound  to  remain  steadfast  to  the  relation 
now  established  forever,  and,  that  it  may  never  be  severed,  to  ob- 
serve without  ceasing  all  the  requirements  that  this  relation  im- 
plies.    This,  whether  in  God  or  man,  is  Righteousness. 

*  In  this  passage  only  the  first  two  names  belong  to  the  original  prophecy.     In  both  Assyria 
must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  Babylonia,  the  then  world  power, 
t  CI.  Ho.  2^.  Ez.  iiso  3628.  J  cj.  2IV10  83  Ex.  29". 


8"-"  209 

1.  niN3x]  Add,  with  42  mss.,  &  21,  '■'^x,  as  in  all  the  other  instances  of 
the  use  of  this  formula. — 2,  niN3s]  Omitted,  but  wrongly,  by  &.  Cf. 
w,  <•  6.  7.  9. — >,-i}<jp]  (g  adds  Ti\v  'lepovff'Kijn  Kal  from  i'^ — riDm]  A  word 
of  kindred  meaning  substituted  for  the  proper  internal  object.  Cf.  Ges. 
5  in.  i.  R.  (a). — 3.  nin^]  Add,  with  8  Kenn.  mss.,  (gco^p-  H,  niN3x, 
as  in  all  similar  cases  in  this  chapter. — 4.  U'lKi]  The  1,  which  is  unneces- 
sary, is  omitted  by  Kenn.  150,  <§.  In  &  it  is  retained  and  a  vb.  very 
properly  inserted  in  the  clause  which  follows. — 5.  inSc]  Masc.  after  a 
fem.  subj.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  '"•  '  '*>  ^-  '.  On  the  gender  of  the  subj.,  cf. 
BDB. — cpnt'c]  Masc.  with  nouns  of  both  genders.  Cf  Ges.  §  '"■  1.  R.  3. 
— 6.  13]  A  conditional  particle,  comparatively  frequent  in  legal  pas- 
sages. According  to  BDB.  it  usually  represents  the  case  supposed  as 
more  likely  to  occur  than  DX.  Cf.  Ex.  21--  ''•  •*,  etc. — ann  a^D'3]  These 
words  can  only  be  rendered  in  those  days;  but,  so  rendered,  they  have  no 
meaning  in  their  present  setting.  They  must  therefore  be  regarded  as 
a  gloss,  perhaps,  to  the  next  clause. — dj]  Ew.  i  324a  a^jj  Qgs_  ^  150.  1  ex- 
plain the  omission  of  the  interrogative  particle  in  this  case  as  due  to  the 
emphatic  arrangement  of  the  sentence.  This,  however,  is  a  mistake, 
since  it  can  be  shown  that  the  ratio  of  cases  in  which  the  arrangement  is 
irregular,  among  sentences  usually  classed  as  questions,  is  as  great  for 
those  that  have  the  particle  as  for  those  from  which  it  is  omitted.  The 
truth  is  that,  when  the  particle  is  intentionally  omitted,  the  clause  which 
it  would  introduce  is  generally  not  a  simple  question,  but  contains  an  ele- 
ment of  incredulity,  irony,  sarcasm  or  repugnance  which  it  would  not  so 
much  denote  as  conceal.  Cf.  i  S.  2ii«/'5  22?  Hb.  2^^  Jb.  2'"  ii'  37I8  _^gis 
4030/416  La.  3'^  There  are  many  passages  equally  ironical,  however, 
especially  in  the  book  of  Job,  in  which  the  particle  is  employed.  Cf. 
Nrd.  §  ""8-  *•  *;  also  Old  Testament  and  Semitic  Studies,  ii,  115  ff. — 7. 
tPDU-n  N13C — miD]  We.  would  read  ki3c — d'cu'h  mrc.  Cf.  Mai.  i" 
Ps.  50'  113'.  This,  no  doubt,  would  be  more  elegant,  but,  since  mm  is 
often  used  alone  in  the  sense  of  the  east,  the  present  reading  is  perfectly 
defensible.  Cf.  Am.  8'^  etc. — 8.  opn]  C6^  adds  «'s  Trjv  yijp  avrOiv. — ijjc'i]. 
<S,  KaraffKrjvuxro},  as  in  v.  ';  but  Comp.  KaTaa-Krjvwaovatv, 


(3)  THE  PAST  AND  FUTURE  IN  CONTRAST  (8^*"). 

The  prophet  recalls  the  want  and  suffering  through  which  his 
people  have  passed,  assuring  them  that  henceforth  Yahweh  will 
bless  them  with  abundance  and  happiness,  yet  only  on  condi- 
tion that  they  contribute  to  this  end,  not  by  observing  fasts  and 
other  formalities,  but  by  obeying  faithfully  the  demands  of  right- 
eousness. 


210 


ZECHARIAH 


9.  The  section  begins  with  an  exhortation,  Let  your  hands  he 
strong.  It  reminds  one  of  Hg.  2''  and  the  work  on  which  the  Jews, 
under  the  leadership  of  Zerubbabel,  were  then,  and  had  for  many 
months  been,  engaged,  the  erection  of  the  second  temple.  Zecha- 
riah,  too,  had  this  in  mind;  for  those  for  whom  the  exhortation  is 
intended  are  addressed  as  ye  that  hear  in  these  days  these  words,  the 
words  above  written, /row  the  mouths  of  the  prophets  that  were,  and 
prophesied,  at  the  time  when  the  foundation  of  the  house  of  Yaliweh 
of  Hosts  was  laid.  This  is  an  unmistakable  reference  to  Haggai 
and  his  unknown  associates  and  the  glowing  predictions  by  which 
they  sought  to  encourage  the  people,  first  to  undertake,  and  then 
to  continue,  their  sacred  task.  Cf.  Hg.  2"^-.  These  inspiring 
utterances  Zechariah  claims  merely  to  be  repeating. — ^10.  There 
follows  a  more  detailed  presentation  of  the  reason  why  the  work 
in  hand  should  be  courageously  and  vigorously  prosecuted.  It 
is  found  in  the  contrast  between  the  conditions  preceding  the  com- 
mencement of  these  operations  and  those  that  are  now  promised, 
Before  those  days,  in  those  former  days,  before  the  foundation  of 
the  temple,  hire  for  men  was  not  paid,  lit.,  did  not  become,  and  hire 
for  cattle  there  was  none,  because,  as  Haggai  puts  it,  Yahweh  had 
commanded  a  drought  that  fell  like  a  blight  "upon  men  and  cattle, 
and  upon  all  the  labour  of  their  hands."  Cf.  also  Hg.  2*"  ^■.  There 
were  other  troubles  to  which  Haggai  does  not  refer.  The  little 
community  then,  as  in  the  later  days  of  Nehemiah  (Ne.  4*/^),  was 
almost  constantly  harassed  by  gentile  neighbours;  nor  was  there 
peace  for  one  that  went  or  came,  on  account  of  the  adversary.  More- 
over, there  was  so  frec^uent  and  general  strife  among  the  Jews  them- 
selves that  it  seemed  as  if  Yahweh  by  an  evil  sjnrit  had  moved,  lit., 
sent,  all  men  one  against  another.  Thus  they  were  rendered  less 
capable  of  enduring  the  other  ills  by  which  they  were  afflicted. 

11.  It  was  Yahweh  who  sent  all  these  misfortunes.  He  was 
angry  with  his  people,  and  this  was  his  way  of  showing  his  dis- 
pleasure. But  now  that  a  new  temple  is  rising  on  the  site  of  the 
old  one,  the  prime  cause  of  his  anger  has  been  removed.  He  says, 
therefore,  /  am  not  as  informer  days,  before  the  new  structure  was 
begun,  toward  the  remnant  of  this  people,  the  little  colony  in  and 
about  Jerusalem.     Here,  again,  Zechariah  follows  Haggai,  who. 


8'-^'  211 

it  will  be  remembered,  predicted  (2'^)  that  a  new  era  of  prosperity 
would  begin  with  the  foundation  of  the  house  of  Yahweh. — 12. 
There  is  further  evidence  of  the  dependence  of  Zechariah  on  his 
predecessor  in  the  language  in  which  Yahweh  now  describes  the 
efifect  of  the  change  in  his  attitude  toward  his  people.  Thus,  the 
promise  of  Yahweh  that  he  will  sow  peace,  or  prosperity,  if  this 
is  the  original  reading,  has  its  parallel  in  Hg.  2^,  where  Yahweh 
says,  "In  this  place  (Jerusalem)  I  will  grant  prosperity.  Cf.  Mai. 
3"°/4".  The  details  that  follow  also  remind  one  of  Haggai. 
Perhaps  the  first  clause,  the  vine  shall  yield  its  fruit,  was  not  sug- 
gested by  the  earlier  prophet,  but  the  next  two  are  an  adaptation  of 
Hg.  1^°.  The  future,  according  to  Zechariah,  is  to  differ  from  the 
recent  past  in  that  the  earth  shall  yield,  not  withhold,  its  produce, 
because  heaven,  instead  of  refusing,  shall  grant  its  dew.  These  are 
great  blessings,  but  the  best  of  all  is  that  they  are  to  be  permanent. 
/  will  cause  the  remnant  of  this  people,  says  Yahweh,  to  inherit,  as 
a  lasting  possession,  all  these  things. — 13.  Finally,  Zechariah  ex- 
pands the  brief  sentence  with  which  Haggai  closes  the  parallel 
passage  (2*®)  with  an  antithetical  statement  in  which  he  again  sets 
the  past  and  the  present  over  against  each  other.  In  the  first  place 
Yahweh  reminds  his  people  of  their  late  unfortunate  condition. 
Ye  were  a  curse  among  the  nations.  This  does  not  mean  that  they 
were  a  source  or  occasion  of  misfortune  to  their  neighbours,  but  that 
the  other  nations,  seeing  their  unfortunate  condition,  recognised  in 
it  the  hand  of  Yahweh,  and,  as  they  would  have  cast  a  stone  at  the 
grave  of  a  malefactor,  added  to  the  divine  penalty  their  reproaches 
and  execrations.*  The  other  member  of  the  antithesis  must  be 
similarly  interpreted.  This  is  clear  from  the  clause,  /  will  help 
you,  by  which  it  is  introduced.  The  fact  that  the  Jews  are  to  be 
the  object  of  Yahweh's  help  makes  it  necessary,  when  he  adds,  and 
ye  shall  he  a  blessing,  to  understand  this  as  meaning  that  they  will 
henceforth  be  blessed  by  him,  and  universally  recognised  as  the 
special  objects  of  the  divine  favour,  so  that  when  men  wish  for 
themselves  or  others,  they  will  be  able  to  conceive  of  no  greater 
felicity  than  that  which  the  Chosen  People  enjoy.f  For  a  similar 
antithesis,  see  Dt.  28"^^  Je.  31^^  ^■.     The  prospect  of  so  complete  a 

*  C/.  Dt.  2i23  Je.  2s'8  266,  etc.  t  Cj.  On.  122  f-  Ps.  72'^. 


212  ZECHARIAH 

change  in  their  fortunes  is  good  ground  for  encouragement.  Hence 
Yahvveh  repeats  the  exhortation  with  which  the  paragraph  began, 
Fear  not;  let  your  hands  be  strong. 

14.  In  this  verse  and  the  next  Yahweh  repeats  the  assurance 
just  given,  employing  the  same  means  as  before,  antithesis,  to  give  it 
emphasis.  In  the  first  place  he  recalls  the  past,  including  the  dark 
gap  in  the  history  of  Judah.  /  purposed  to  do  you,  as  a  people, 
evil,  he  says,  referring  to  the  threats  of  which  the  messages  of  the 
earlier  prophets  largely  consisted,  when,  and  because,  your  fathers 
provoked  me,  by  neglecting  the  instruction  they  had  received.  The 
provocation  was  so  serious  and  persistent  that,  although,  even  at 
the  last  moment,  he  would  gladly  have  spared  them,  he  did  not  re- 
pent, but  gave  them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies. — 15.  This 
purpose  having  been  fulfilled,  Yahweh  has  conceived  a  new  pur- 
pose, suggested  by  love  rather  than  anger  and  fraught  with  salva- 
tion instead  of  destruction.  So,  he  declares,  have  I  again  in  these 
days  purposed  to  do  good  to  Jerusalem  and  the  house  of  Judah.  To 
make  the  parallel  between  these  two  verses  and  the  one  preceding 
more  complete,  he  adds  the  reassuring  words,  fear  not. — 16.  At 
first  sight  vv. '®  ^-  seem  a  useless  repetition.  They  are,  indeed, 
a  repetition,  but  by  no  means  one  devoid  of  significance.  The 
prophet  wished  to  add  an  important  modification  to  the  thought  of 
w.  "''^,  but,  if  he  had  attached  it  immediately  to  v.  ",  the  effect 
would  have  been  to  weaken  the  impression  already  made  without 
obtaining  for  the  new  thought  the  attention  it  deserved.  It  was 
better,  therefore,  to  take  a  fresh  start  and  make  the  added  thought 
the  principal  one  in  a  new  connection,  repeating  the  one  to  be  quali- 
fied by  way  of  introduction.  This  latter  is  the  restoration  of  Yah- 
weh's  favour.  His  people,  however,  must  not  be  allowed  to  sup- 
pose that  his  new  purpose  is  arbitrary,  and  its  fulfilment  uncondi- 
tioned; or  that  the  only  condition  is  the  maintenance  of  the  temple 
and  its  worship.  To  prevent  any  such  mistake  he  again  reminds 
them,  as  in  7®  ^^  that  they  have  duties  to  one  another  which  they 
may  not  leave  undone.  These,  he  says,  are  the  things  that  ye  shall 
do;  and  he  proceeds  to  enumerate  them.  The  first  of  these  require- 
ments, that  they  speak  the  truth  one  to  another,  is  not  mentioned  in 
7®  ^^  but  the  second,  deal  peaceful  justice  in  your  gates,  is  found 


8^-'  213 

there  in  a  slightly  different  form.  By  peaceful  justice  is  doubtless 
meant  a  justice  so  impartial  that  none  can  quarrel  with  it.  See  the 
"peaceful  counsel"  of  6^'.  The  reference  to  the  gates  recalls  the 
fact  that  in  an  oriental  town  the  gate,  or  the  open  space  near  it,  has 
always  been  the  place  where  men  were  most  accustomed  to  gather, 
and  therefore  where  justice,  or  a  pretence  of  it,  was  administered. 
CJ.  Gn.  19^  Am.  5**'-  ^^,  etc. — ^17.  The  prophet  could  hardly  have 
omitted  the  broad  principle  enunciated  in  7^".  He  therefore  again 
adjures  his  people,  Do  not  devise  evil  one  against  another  in  your 
hearts.  Finally,  he  adds  a  new  precept,  which,  however,  is  familiar 
enough  to  the  reader  of  the  Old  Testament,  being  embodied  in  the 
third  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  nor  love  a  false  oath*  The  final 
clause,  if  interpreted  strictly,  would  refer  only  to  the  last  two  items 
in  the  preceding  enumeration;  for,  of  course,  Zechariah  did  not  in- 
tend to  say  that  Yahweh  hated  truth  and  justice.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  the  prophet,  when  he  added  this  statement,  was 
thinking,  not  of  these  virtues,  but  the  neglect  of  them ;  otherwise  he 
would  hardly  have  used  the  word  all  of  the  things  hated.  Three 
of  the  things  here  mentioned  are  among  the  seven  "abominations" 
enumerated  in  Pr.  6^"  *^- ;  but  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  connec- 
tion between  the  two  passages.  The  prophet  certainly  did  not 
borrow  from  the  sage. 

9.  nij3nS — -ie'n]  The  whole  clause  is  rejected  as  an  addition  to  the 
original  by  Marti;  but  there  are  good  reasons  for  retaining  all  but  the  last 
two  words,  (i)  It  seems  necessary  to  make  the  reference  to  the  prophets 
easily  intelligible;  and  (2)  it  is  required  by  ann  o^D^n  of  v.  '",  which  would 
be  meaningless  without  it.  There  is  room  for  doubt,  however,  about 
DV3,  for  which  (S  &  seem  to  have  had  dvd,  a  reading  which  some  critics 
have  adopted.  So  Ew.,  Hi.,  Now.,  Marti.  On  the  other  hand,  M  is 
supported  by  the  fact  that  the  words  in  question  are  evidently  those 
spoken  by  Haggai  and  others  at  or  about  the  time  when  the  movement  to 
rebuild  the  temple  was  started.  Cf.  Hg.  1^  ^-  2'=  «•.  The  last  two 
words,  nij2n'?  SaTin,  seem  to  have  been  added  by  some  one  who,  fol- 
lowing the  Chronicler,  wished  to  remind  the  reader  that  this  was  the  sec- 
ond attempt  of  the  kind. — 10.  onn  o'lcn]  Marti  would  read  n'^xn  d''DTi; 
but  he  is  forced  to  emend  by  his  rejection  of  the  latter  part  of  v.  '.  If 
the  alleged  gloss  be  retained,  it  will  appear  that  the  prophet  distinguished 
three  points  or  periods  of  time,  these  days,  the  time  when  the  foundation, 

*  Cj.  Dt.  5<  Ex.  23'  Dt.  ig'fi «  ,  etc. 


214  ZECHARIAH 

etc.,  and  here  the  period  before  those  days,  i.  e.,  before  the  temple  was  be- 
gun.— nvij]  (g  has  the  future  here  and  throughout  the  verse,  except  in 
some  curs,  mostly  of  L. — nScNi]  Dr.  (%  ".  "oie  2)  classes  this  among 
the  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  1  cons,  takes  -^  before  the  i  sg.  impf . ;  but  it 
may  be  simply  a  mistake  for  nSu'Ni,  or,  as  Da.  ^  *'•  ^-  «  suggests,  the 
vb.  may  be  a  frequentative.  The  former  alternative  is  favoured  by 
Now.,  Marti,  Kit.— 11.  d^d^3]  For  '2  +  2.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  'I8.  «  (*).— ■.jn] 
Some  mss.  have  the  pausal  form  •'JN. — 12.  oiSrn  yir]  These  words  can 
only  be  rendered,  as  in  B,  the  seed  of  peace  or  prosperity.  The  phrase 
has  sometimes  been  connected  with  the  following  context,  jaj  being  con- 
strued as  an  appositive  of  pi!.  So  Ew.,  Hi.,  Ke.,  Koh.,  Wri.,  et  al. 
There  seems  to  be  no  reason,  however,  why  the  vine  should  be  so  dis- 
tinguished. Hence,  others  have  preferred  to  emend  by  reading  njnr 
Di'^'w',  its  seed,  or,  more  exactly,  the  increase  of  its  seed,  shall  be  sure,  pros- 
perous. So  Klo.,  Now.  To  this  suggestion  there  is  the  objection  that  it 
is  not  sufficiently  evident  to  what  the  sf.  of  the  subj.  refers,  and  when  one 
is  informed  that  the  antecedent  is  n''->sr  of  v.  ",  the  combination  thus 
produced  is  confusing.  It  is  much  better,  with  We.,  to  change  j'lr  to 
nyiiN,  thus  getting  the  intelligible  thought,  7  will  sow  prosperity.  Cf. 
Ho.  223/21  je.  3127  f..  So  also  Marti,  GASm.,  Kit.— 13.  ^n-\t'<\  This 
name  has  occurred  once  before  in  these  prophecies,  viz.,  in  22/11 's.  it 
was  found,  however,  by  a  comparison  of  that  verse  with  2Vi^'  that  it  (the 
name)  was  an  interpolation.  The  same  is  the  case  here.  In  the  next 
four  verses  the  persons  addressed  are  the  same  as  in  this  passage.  But  in 
v.  '^,  where  the  prophet  has  occasion  to  give  them  a  name,  he  calls  them 
simply  "  the  house  of  Judah."  In  other  words,  Zechariah  did  not  predict 
the  return  of  Israel,  but  some  one  familiar  with  such  passages  as  Je.  23^  *• 
Ez.  37'^  "■,  missing  any  reference  to  the  northern  kingdom,  supplied  the 
name  here  without  noticing  that  from  his  stand-point  v. ''  also  needed 
emendation.  Both  names  are  omitted  by  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 14. 
icn2]  a  third  case  of  this  use  of  the  word  where  one  would  expect  cnj, 
and  in  a  passage  that  only  disturbs  the  connection.  Cf  1^  7'^ — nSi]  The 
negative  is  omitted  by  &  in  Par.  and  Lond. — 15.  \"^r::r]  (&  &  have  a 
connective,  but  the  fact  that  both  have  the  pf.  shows  that  it  was  wanting 
in  the  original.  On  this  construction,  see  Ges.  ^  '20.  2  (*>, — ig.  mpi  pn] 
Seven  mss.  have  myn  Vs.  So  also  (&. — prN2]  A  gloss  to  DiSir  sug- 
gested by  7'.  Om.  CgAQL  (gn  ^  jjii,  go  New.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.— DiSr, 
Two  mss.  prefix  1.  So  also  &.  It  is  possible  that  the  original  was  D^u', 
which  would  practically  be  a  synonym  of  pdn.  Cf.  7'  Dt.  25'^  Ru.  2 '2. — 
17.  'J1  u'-n]  See  note  on  7'". — tj'n]  Om.,  with  5  mss.,  <S  &.  So  Bla., 
We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  This  method  of  disposing  of  the  word  relieves 
one  from  the  necessity  of  attributing  to  pn2  entirely  unwarranted  mean- 
ings or  functions.  Cf.  Ges.  ^^  117.  1.  R.  ?;  ];)a.  \  n.v..  y  The  insertion  of 
the  relative  was  probably  due  to  oversight  of  the  sign  of  the  ace. — nin-] 


»'°-"  215 

(5  &  add  niN3X,  whether  correctly  or  incorrectly,  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
cide, since  Zechariah  writes  nin^  alone,  even  at  the  end  of  the  verse.     CJ. 


(4)   THE   REIGN   OF  JOY  AND   GLADNESS   (8""^'). 

The  fasts  will  all  be  transformed  into  seasons  of  rejoicing,  and 
the  nations,  seeing  the  blissful  change  in  the  condition  of  the  Jews, 
will  come  to  worship  their  God,  that  they  may  share  his  favour. 

18.  The  introductory  statement  is  regular,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
first  two  oracles. — ^19.  The  people  of  Bethel,  in  their  message  to  the 
priests  and  the  prophets,  mentioned  only  one  fast,  that  of  the  fifth 
month.  CJ.  f.  Zechariah  in  f  refers  to  another,  that  of  the 
seventh  month.  It  now  appears  that  there  were  no  fewer  than  four, 
the  first  of  which  fell  in  the  fourth  month,  Tammuz.  It  also  com- 
memorated an  incident  in  the  final  struggle  at  Jerusalem,  for  it  was 
on  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth  month,  that  is,  toward  the  end  of 
June,  when  the  breach  was  made  in  the  wall  and  the  Babylonians 
entered  the  city.*  On  the  origin  of  the  fasts  of  the  fifth  and  seventh 
months,  see  f-  ^.  That  of  the  tenth,  Tebeth,  was  instituted  as  a 
reminder  of  the  date,  the  tenth  of  that  month,  that  is,  toward  the 
end  of  December,  on  which  the  forces  of  Nebuchadrezzar  arrived 
at  Jerusalem  and  began  the  siege  of  the  city.f  These  days  may 
still  be  celebrated,  but  not,  as  heretofore,  with  fasting  and  mourn- 
ing. They  are  to  be  transformed  into  occasions  for  joy  and  gladness, 
even  cheerful  festivals. %  This  picture  was  calculated  to  make  those 
for  whom  the  message  was  intended  forget  the  past  with  all  its 
suffering.  The  prophet  evidently  feared  that  it  might  make  them 
forget  their  responsibilities.  That  they  may  not  he  adds  an  exhor- 
tation, obedience  to  which  will  insure  the  fulfilment  of  their  most 
sanguine  expectations,  But  love  truth  and  peace.  The  latter,  of 
course,  includes  the  things  that  make  for  peace.  Cf  v.  ^*'. — 20. 
The  prophet  has  already  (2^^/")  intimated  that  the  time  would  1 
come  when  other  nations  would  participate  in  the  blessings  prom- 1 
ised  to  the  Chosen  People.  He  now  resumes  this  thought  for  the 
purpose  of  making  it  the  climax  of  his  presentation  of  the  divine 

*  C/.  2  K.  255 '    Je.  39=  '••  t  Q.  2  K.  25!  Je.  39'. 

t  CI.  Am.  8")  Je.  3i'2/i3. 


2l6  ZECHARIAH 

program.  Speaking  for  Yahweh,  he  says,  There  shall  yet  come 
peoples,  peoples  now  hostile  or  indifferent  to  the  Jews,  even  the  in- 
habitants of  many  cities,  the  cities  of  the  just  mentioned  peoples. 
Cf.  Is.  2'  Mi.  4-. — 21.  There  will  be  so  general  eagerness  among 
these  peoples  that  the  inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go  to  another, 
saying,  Let  us  by  all  means  go  to  entreat  Yahweh.  The  final  words 
are  not  a  continuation  of  the  same  speech,  but  apparently  the  reply 
of  the  one  addressed,  /  also  will  go. 

22.  The  result  of  this  universal  interest  will  be  that  many  peoples 
and  mighty  nations  shall  come  to  seek  Yahweh  of  Hosts  in  Jerusalem, 
and  to  entreat  Yahweh.  The  means  by  which  they  will  seek  to 
appease  him  and  secure  his  favour  is  no  doubt  the  presentation  of 
sacrifices  in  the  new  temple;  which,  indeed,  they  are  to  assist  in 
building. — 23.  Zechariah  concludes  with  a  picture  that  seems  to 
have  been  suggested  by  Is.  45"  ^•.  The  great  exilic  prophet,  also, 
looked  forward  to  a  time  when  the  gentiles  would  recognise  Yah- 
weh as  the  true  God  and  the  Jews  as  his  peculiar  people,  and  he 
undertook  in  the  passage  cited  to  portray  them  in  their  new  rela- 
tion. The  result  was  hardly  worthy  of  him.  His  Egyptians,  Ethi- 
opians and  Sabaeans,  as  they  come,  bringing  their  costly  gifts  and 
casting  themselves  in  chains  at  the  feet  of  the  servants  of  Yahweh, 
too  evidently  betray  racial  pride  and  resentment  in  the  delineator. 
Zechariah  is  less  extravagant.  The  events  of  the  last  twenty  years 
have  taught  him  respect,  if  not  friendliness,  for  the  nations.  Still, 
he  cannot  deny  his  religion  or  abandon  his  faith  in  the  final  triumph 
of  Yahweh  over  all  false  deities.  In  those  days,  he  says,  ten  men  of 
all  the  tongues  of  the  nations  shall  seize  the  skirt  of  a  Jew,  saying. 
We  will  go  with  you,  for  we  have  heard  that  God  is  with  you.  Note 
the  pains  he  takes  to  use  the  name  God  in  this  connection.  In 
this  he  imitates  his  exilic  teacher.  Cf.  Is.  45".  The  speech  is  a 
confession  by  the  gentiles  that  they  have  finally  found  the  Power 
after  whom  they  have  hitherto  been  blindly  and  vainly  groping, 
the  only  Saviour,  in  the  God  of  the  Hebrews. 

18.  icnS.  (^^^  om. — ri^r\^]  Probably  the  correct  reading.  Only  2 
mss.  have  the  pi.  On  the  sg.  after  a  pi.  subj.,  see  Ges.  ^  '<«•  ^  (">. 
— W2}\:]  <&  adds  /coi  (ixPpavd'^aeadt  =  arnriri.  So  &",  but  there  seems  to 
be  no  warrant  for  this  reading. — 20.  v]  B  nls. -<;•,  (Si^S"';'.   (6  &  ignore 


8^'-=='  217 

•\Vi<,  which,  if  retained,  must  be  construed  as  introducing  a  subject,  not 
an  object  clause.  Cf.  v."  Ec.  ^^i  BDB.,  art.  t:-n,  8. — a^'cy]  Kenn. 
150  adds  D''3n.  So  d. — larn]  &,  by  omitting  1,  makes  the  prtc.  an 
appositive  of  QiDj!. — 21.  nnN']  d^Q,  ir^vTe  fl-6Xeis,  <B^*,  wSXis  irdXas  Kal 
avveKeuffovre  KaToiKoCvrais  irivre  irbXeis. — liSn]  The  inf.  abs.  after  a 
finite  vb.  Cf.  Ges.  §112-3  (*). — mm  hn]  (&  has  toi>  Trpocrdiirov  Kvplov  = 
nin»  >jc  HN  both  here  and  in  v.  ^. — 'Ji  hoSn]  ®  introduces  this  reply  by 
1D>'  inS  jn,  TAx.s  one  ^i'i//  say  to  that  one. — Ew.  divides  the  verse  after 
ninii,  thus  making  the  second  inf.  rpaS  dependent  on  noSs.  The 
whole  clause  niN3s — t'pa'^i,  which  should  precede  m'^nS,  is  probably  a 
gloss.  Cf.  V.  =2. — 22.  DTISJ?  DMj]  (I,  €^fa  TToXXa;  ul,  p3-\3T  r^'^'^,  as  in 
Je.  25'^  27'. — 23.  TiT's]  See  note  on  v.  '">. — ipnnni]  Resumptive,  after 
the  long  intervening  subject.  Cf.  Dr.  §  "7-  ''°"'. — odd^']  05  &  render 
the  sf.  as  if  it  were  sg.,  but  at  the  end  of  the  verse  (exc.  (6^)  have  the  pi. 
— ijjjott']  Add  ^D,  with  2  mss.  and  (&"&  &(S. 


THE  DATE  AND  AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE 
SECOND  PART  OF  ZECHARIAH. 

The  book  of  Zechariah,  so  called,  contains,  besides  the  eight 
chapters  universally  attributed  to  the  prophet  of  that  name,  six  the 
origin  and  authorship  of  which  have  long  been  in  dispute.  The 
questions  when  and  by  whom  they  were  written  must  therefore  be 
discussed  and,  if  possible,  settled;  but  first  it  seems  necessary  to 
take  a  preliminary  survey  of  the  content  of  the  chapters  as  a  whole, 
and  especially  to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  the  text  as  it  has  been 
transmitted  by  the  Massoretes. 

§  I.      THE   STRUCTURE   OF   CHS.    9-14. 

The  ninth  chapter  begins  with  a  word,  Xtl'O,  sometimes  rendered 
burden,  but  more  correctly  utterance,  which  frequently  appears  in 
titles,  especially  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.  Cf.  13'  i5\  etc.  It  has 
generally  been  regarded  as  so  used  in  this  case,  and,  since  another 
occurs  in  12^,  as  the  title,  or  a  part  of  it,  of  chs.  9-1 1.  Thus  it  has 
been  customary  to  divide  Second  Zechariah,  as  it  is  called,  into 
two  parts,  each  of  which  has  three  chapters,  and,  probably  by  acci- 
dent rather  than  design,  the  same  number  (46)  of  verses.  The 
genuineness  of  12^  however,  is  now  pretty  generally  questioned. 
In  its  present  form  it  is  quite  indefensible.  Moreover,  since  the 
time  of  Ewald  there  have  been  those  who  have  claimed  that  13^"^ 
is  the  conclusion  of  i  !■*  *^-.  One  cannot,  therefore,  take  for  granted 
the  correctness  of  the  Massoretic  arrangement,  but  must  reopen 
the  case  and  make  one's  own  analysis. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  question  concerns  the  arrange- 
ment, and  not  the  authorship,  of  these  chapters.  If  this  distinc- 
tion is  kept  in  mind,  there  will  not  be  much  difikulty  in  deciding 

218 


THE    STRUCTURE    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  219 

that,  whatever  may  be  the  case  with  the  others,  or  any  part  of  them, 
the  first  three  chapters  form  a  group  with  noticeable  points  of  con- 
tact and  connection.  Thus  the  "also"  of  9"  clearly  indicates  that, 
whoever  may  have  written  the  preceding  verses,  the  author  of  this 
one  intended  to  connect  them  with  what  follows.  The  connec- 
tion between  9"^-  and  lo^-ii^  is  unmistakable;  for,  besides  the 
references  to  Israel  in  both  passages,  there  is  the  peculiar  metrical 
form  in  which  they  are  cast  to  mark  them  as  parts  of  one  composi- 
tion. The  rest  of  ch.  1 1  has  not  the  same  form, — in  fact,  most  of  it 
is  plain  prose, — and  there  is  room  for  doubt  whether  it  is  the  work 
of  the  same  author  as  the  first  verses;  but  it  evidently  owes  its  pres- 
ent position  in  the  book  of  Zechariah  to  the  fact  that,  like  10^,  it 
has  for  its  subject  worthless  shepherds,  and  13^"^  should  be,  and  no 
doubt  originally  was,  attached  to  it  for  the  same  reason. 

Thus  far  there  has  been  a  traceable  unity.  Here,  however, 
there  comes  a  break,  and  from  this  point  onward  the  marks  that 
have  been  noted  are  conspicuously  absent.  The  author  of  12^ 
therefore,  whoever  he  was,  was  justified  in  introducing  a  new  title. 
It  suggests  several  questions.  The  only  one  germane  to  the  present 
discussion  is  whether  this  title  covers  the  rest  of  the  book,  13^"^  ex- 
cepted, or,  rather,  whether  there  is  a  connection  between  the  parts 
of  this  latter  half  similar  to  that  which  has  been  traced  through  the 
first  three  chapters.  There  seems  to  be  such  a  connection.  At 
any  rate,  Jerusalem  is  prominent  throughout  as  a  centre  of  interest 
and  anticipation.  In  13^^  this  central  point  is  for  the  time  being 
lost  sight  of,  but  the  passage  can  hardly  be  explained  except  as 
suggested  by  12^  where  "the  house  of  David  and  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem"  are  expressly  mentioned.  This  being  the  case,  one 
may  still  separate  Second  Zechariah  into  two  divisions,  the  first 
consisting  of  chs.  9-1 1  and  13'"^,  and  the  second  of  12^-13®  and  14. 

In  the  first  division  the  first  break  naturally  comes  after  9^". 
The  place  for  the  second  is  not  so  easy  to  determine.  There  are 
those  who  find  none  before  the  end  of  ch.  10.  It  is  usual,  however, 
to  make  one  at  the  end  of  ch.  9  or  after  10^.  Hitzig  makes  one  at 
each  of  these  two  points.  So  also  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  et  al.  The 
matter  is  well  put  by  Keil:  "The  close  connection  between  v.  ^^ 
and  V.  ^  shows  that  with  v.^  there  commences  a  new  line  of  thought, 


220  ZECHARIAH 

for  which,  however,  9*^  prepares  the  way."  The  third  section,  then, 
begins  with  lo^  It  includes  1 1*"^,  for  (i)  these  last  verses  have  the 
same  metrical  form  as  the  preceding,  and  (2)  they  lose  all  signifi- 
cance unless  they  are  so  connected.  The  same  may  be  said  of  13''* 
in  relation  to  ii^'".  In  this  case  the  fact  that,  as  v.  Ortenberg 
points  out,*  11^^  is  a  parallel  to  Ez.  34^  and  13'  to  Ez.  34^  confirms 
the  inference  from  form  and  subject.  It  is  suggested  that  the 
transfer  of  13^^"  to  its  present  position  in  the  Massoretic  text  was 
occasioned  by  a  fancied  relation  between  it  and  ch.  14.!  Per- 
haps the  reviser  thought  that  the  capture  and  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem foretold  in  14*  was  the  fiery  trial  of  13".  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  reason  for  it,  the  opinion  that  such  a  change  has  been 
made  is  widely  held  among  biblical  scholars.^  The  remainder, 
after  the  removal  of  13^^-,  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  sec- 
tions, 12^-13^  and  14. 

§  2.      THE  TEXT   OF   CHS.    9-I4. 

The  text  of  the  second,  like  that  of  the  first,  part  of  the  book  of 
Zechariah  has  imdergone  various  changes,  intentional  or  unin- 
tentional, some  of  which  are  of  considerable  importance.  There 
seem  to  be  more  of  them  in  the  first  two  chapters  than  in  the  remain- 
ing four;  but  this  may  be  only  because  the  regularity  of  the  rhythm 
in  9/.  makes  it  easier  to  detect  those  that  have  been  made  than  in 
the  prose,  or  less  regular  poetry,  of  the  other  chapters.  There  are 
here,  as  in  First  Zechariah,  a  number  of  cases  in  which  more  or 
less  significant  explanations  have  been  added.  See  the  phrase  "  the 
house  of  Judah  "  in  10^.  The  last  words  of  9*  are  of  this  character, 
and  probably,  also,  the  phrase  "against  the  sons  of  Greece"  in 
9"  and  the  statement  "a  tiller  of  the  soil  am  I"  in  13^.  The  in- 
stances of  expansion  are  much  more  numerous.  In  some  cases 
whole  verses  have  been  added.  The  following  are  good  examples: 
in  9",  "in  which  there  is  no  water";  in  10^,  "for  I  have  redeemed 
thee";  in  12",  "and  over  Judah  will  he  be  also  in  the  siege  against 
Jerusalem."    There  are  not  many  apparent  corrections.    The 

*  Die  Bcslandtlteile  des  Buches  Sacharja,  53  /. 

t  V.  Ortenberg,  BBS.,  55.  X  So  Su.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  el  al. 


THE    TEXT    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  221 

most  notable  is  in  12'",  where,  as  will  be  explained  in  the  critical 
notes,  some  one  has  undertaken  to  remedy  an  error  by  a  copyist. 
The  following  table  contains  all  the  changes  that  have  been  noted, 
arranged  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  how  the  text  should  be  restored 
when  necessary. 


222 


ZECHARIAH 


THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

9,1. 

hi<-\v-> — Ssi 

DIN  ]>•;  for  s-(N  '-ip. 

2. 

IS 

3- 

4- 

S- 

6. 

7. 

VST  for  1S1  (?); 
I'^ND  for  '\^_t*o. 

8. 

The  entire  verse. 

naxa  for  nasi;. 

9- 

xo. 

•'i-nani  for  nnani. 

II. 

13  O'O  pS. 

12. 

1UD  Dvn  aj  rtnxaS 

i3ir  for  nc'i. 

13- 

p>  i>j3  Sy 

y:2  for  ''ja. 

14. 

••JINI 

15. 

:  iSaNi  :  niN3x 
p-itna 

irni  for  3^21. 

16. 

.-ijn>  after  insj;  ncn 
after  irj. 

0  for  3. 

17- 

The  entire  verse. 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   IX-XIV 


223 


THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

9,  I- 

arid  all  the  tribes  of 
Israel. 

the  eye  of  man  for  the 
cities  of  Aram. 

2. 

Tyre. 

3- 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7- 

pi.  of  blood  for  sg.;  chief 
for  family. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

The  entire  verse. 
with  no  water  in  it. 

from  an  army  for  an 
outpost. 

he  will,  for  I  will,  de- 
stroy. 

12. 

for  trouble ;  to-day, 
also,  I  declare. 

return  (imv.)  for  and 
shall  return. 

13- 

against  the  sons  of 
Yawan. 

Thy  sons  for  the  sons  of 
{Yawan). 

14. 

yea,  the  Lord. 

IS- 

of  Hosts;    devour 
and;  like  a  bowl. 

and  they  shall  rage  for 
blood. 

16. 

will  he 
they 
after 

feed ; 
[shall 
crown. 

they 

be) 

for  for  like. 

17- 

The  entire  verse. 

224  ZECHAMAH 

THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

lO,  I. 

u'ipSn  nj,'3 

2. 

pcnr — nmSni 

U'DJ  for  nj,'Dj. 

3- 

4- 

The  entire  verse. 

5- 

O'Ba  for  O'tis. 

6. 

DJi'Nl — 'JN  '3 

omarini  for  D.iirm. 

7- 

hr  for  Sji. 

8. 

DTno  '•3 

9- 

nu'i — vm 

a;ntNi  for  Dnmi; 
vni  for  vni 

lO. 

?1J3S\ 

II. 

a^Sj  a'>3  nam 

12. 

The  entire  verse. 

o'maji  for  omaji; 
i3':'nn>  for  iSSnn\ 

II,  I. 

2. 

mtr — SS^n 

3- 

ar-nN  for  on^yiD. 

4- 

'hSn  for  ''Sn. 

S- 

"\CN'    for    ncN';     nu'PNi 
for   is'jJN];    D^'Pi  for 

6. 

7- 

'MJJ  jdS  for  "WsS;  o>':'3n 

for  O'San. 

8. 

nnN — nnoNi 

9- 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   IX-XIV 
THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XR'. 


225 


ADDITIONS. 


10,  I.  in  the  time — rain. 

2.  Yea,  they  speak — 

comfort. 

3.  of  Hosts;  the  house 

of   Judah;     in 
war. 

4.  The  entire  verse. 

5- 

6.  for  I  am — them. 

7- 

8.  for     I     have    re- 

deemed them. 

9.  and  they  shall  rear 

— return. 

10.  and  Lebanon. 

11.  And  he  will  smile 

— waves. 

12.  The  entire  verse. 


2.  Wail,  cypress — de- 
vastated. 

3- 
S- 


8.  and  I  destroyed- 
month. 


moved  for  were  scattered. 


in  mire  for  as  it    were 
mire. 

An  ambiguous  word  for  / 
will  ez'en  restore  them. 

shall  exult  for  and  shall 
exult. 


sowed  for  scattered;  live 
for  rear. 


and  I  will  make  them 
mighty  for  and  their 
might  {shall  be);  walk 
for  make  their  boast. 


glory  for  pasture. 

my  God  for  to  me. 

says  for  say  ;  abnormal 
form  of  vb.  be  rich; 
their,  mas.  for  fern. 


therefore  the  poorest  of 
for  tJie  traders  in; 
binders  for  bonds. 


226  ZECHARIAH 

THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

II 

10. 

n^cnS  for  ic^S. 

II. 

^'jp  J3  for  "JPJ3. 

12. 

13- 

•\p^r\  for  ixiNn,  twice; 
'Pip''  for  pnp'. 

14. 

IS- 

'Sin  for  Smn. 

16. 

pnnajn  for  P^njjn;  -\-;:n 
for  npjni;  naxon  for 
naxjni  or  naynm ; 
m'Dioi  for  in'pi3i 

17- 

Sd'  after  Jnn, 

S'Snh  forS'lNH. 

13 

7.  niN3x — aNj 

in  for  n3N  or  riy:)r^  with- 
out    pn;   O'-iyin     for 

12 

8. 

I.   SniB" — HE'D 

a.  oWn' — oj) 

3.  yinn — 1BDNJ1 

4.  'J'P — Spi 

1  before  'Pidn. 

ipu'  for  ipui. 
Sp  for  Sn. 

5. 

'bSn    for    'dSn;     '3<p>  >*? 

for   '3B"S. 

6.  (oSuhn'3) — n3K*>i 

»dSn  for  'cSn. 

7. 

njE'N'^3  for  njB'Nia;  3B*' 
for  '3C". 

8. 

31^'  for  OB*'. 

9- 

10.    PN 

3C"  for  '3K";  'Sk  for  Sn; 

noni  for  moni. 

THE   TEXT  OF   CHAPTERS   IX-XIV  227 

THE  TEXT  OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

II,  10. 

Irregular  form  of  inf. 
{break). 

II. 

Then  the  poorest  of  for 
the  traders  in. 

12. 

13- 

potter  for  treasury.  I 
have,  for  thou  hast, 
been  valued. 

14. 

15- 

Irreg.  form  of  adj.  {fool- 
ish). 

16. 

Those  that  are,  for  the  one 
that  is,  being  destroyed; 
the  young  for  and  the 
one  that  is  wandering  ; 
the  one  that  surviveth 
for  and  the  one  that  sur- 
viveth or  kungereth; 
hoofs  for  legs. 

17- 

shall  fall  after  sword. 

worthless  {of  worthless- 
ness)  for  foolish. 

13,  7- 

saith — Hosts. 

smite  for  I  will  smite; 
prtc.  for  adj.  {little 
ones). 

8. 

and  before  die. 

9- 

Then  before  will  I  say. 

12,    I. 

An  oracle — Israel. 

against  for  to. 

2. 

and  over  Judah 
— Jeriisalefn. 

3- 

and  there  shall  be 
gathered— earth. 

t 

4- 

and     upon     the 
house — eyes. 

5- 

chiefs   for   families; 
strength  for  me  the  in- 
habitants for  strength 
for  the  inhabitants. 

6. 

but  Jerusalem — 
{in  Jerusalem). 

chiefs  ioT  families. 

7. 

first  for  as  at  first ,  inhab- 
itant  for   inhabitants. 

8. 

inhabitant  for  i7ihabi- 
tants. 

9' 
10. 

Sign  of  the  ace. 

inhabitant  for  inhabi- 
tants ;  me  for  hint ;  inf. 
for  fin.  vb.  {grieve). 

228  ZECHARIAH 

THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

12,  II. 

12. 

^3S  Dn>t'ji  after  naS". 

ninfliTD  for  nncu'D  twice. 

13- 
14. 

nhflrn  for  rnorc  twice. 

13,1- 

PNisnS  for  nxanS. 

2. 

mN3S 

3- 

4- 

1.-iN3jn3 

lU'  after  itt'oS\ 

5- 

>3JN— C"N 

■'jj|in  D-iN  for  •'j'jp  nciN. 

6. 

in^  for  inx. 

14,1. 

2. 

3- 

av3  for  1D3. 

4- 

— -»i:'n  :Ninn  ova 
OTtn  in2  :  oipc 

5- 

mini — DrDji' 

1  before  Ss. 

anpjt'  for  onpji;  •'in  nu 
for  linu;  Sxn  for  ^xx; 
\nSN  for  T^Ss;  D''r-i|"> 
for  rrip;  ic}'  for  isy. 

6. 

-\iN  for  iiy;  n)-\p''  for 
nnpi;  pNDp''  for  jiNDpi. 

7- 

nirrS — Nin 

8. 

9- 
10. 

The  entire  verse. 

31D'  for  3D1  (  ?) ;  Sijci  for 

II. 

na  i3t*M 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS   IX-XIV 
THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


229 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

12,  II. 

12. 

and  their  women   alone 

families    by    themselves 

after  themselves.^ 

for  each  family  by 
themselves. 

13- 

14. 

families  by  themselves 
for  each  family  by 
themselves. 

13.1- 

Const,  for  abs.  of  sin. 

2. 

of  Hosts. 

3- 
4- 

when  he  prophe- 
sieth. 

longer  before  wear. 

5- 

A  tiller— I. 

man  hath  sold  me  for 
the  soil  hath  been  my 
possession. 

6. 

thy  hands  for  thy  sides. 

14,1. 
2. 

3- 

as  in  the  day  for  as. 

4- 

in  that  day;  which 
— eastward;  the 
mount    of  Ol- 
ives? 

5- 

Ye    shall  flee— 

and  before  all. 

ye  shall  flee  by  the  gorge 

Judah. 

of  my  mountains  for 
Gihon  shall  be  stopped; 
A  sal  and  for  the  side 
of  it;  my  God  for  thy 
God;  the  holy  ones  for 
his  holy  ones;  with 
thee  for  with  him. 

6. 

light  for  longer;  precious 
things  shall  contract 
for  cold  and  frost. 

7- 

it    is    known    to 

8. 
9- 

Yahweh. 

The  entire  verse. 

10. 

to  the  site  of  the 

from  before  the  tower. 

And    at    the    beginning 

first  gate. 

changed  to  preforma- 
tive  of  the  impf. 

II. 

and    they    shall 
dwell  in  it. 

230  ZECHARIAH 

THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,  IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

14,  12. 

pen  for   pDH;    on^DO  for 

13. 

ini'T  T>  for  inpna. 

14.    313D 

flDNi  for  nppNi. 

IS- 

16. 

17- 

18.  — n'?  -ic=n 

:nSi2 

So  before  DMjn 

nN3  nSi  for  nN2i  or  nSi 

niDDD 

N3n. 

19. 

20. 

Sy  for  S3 

21. 

THE   TEXT   OF   CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  23 1 

THE  TEXT   OF  ZECHARIAH,   IX-XIV. 


ADDITIONS. 

OMISSIONS. 

ERRORS. 

14,  12. 

Hiph.  for  Niph.;  their, 
inf.  pi.  for  distributive. 

13. 

A  faulty  construction  of 
hand. 

14. 

round. 

there  shall  he  collected  for 
they  shall  collect. 

IS- 

16. 

17. 

18. 

then    before    on 
them  ( ?) ;    the 
following   not; 
that  come— tab- 
ernacles. 

all  before  the  nations. 

have  not  presented  them- 
selves for  present  them- 
selves or  present  not 
themselves. 

19. 

20. 

on  for  all. 

21. 

232  ZECHARIAH 


§  3.      THE   AUTHORSHIP   OF  CHS.    9-I4. 

The  object  of  the  above  attempt  to  restore  the  original  text  of 
the  chapters  under  examination  was  to  furnish  a  rehable  basis  for 
further  inquiry.  There  are  several  questions  that  demand  con- 
sideration. The  first  is  whether  these  chapters  are  the  work  of  the 
same  author  as  the  preceding  eight.  Tradition  says  that  they  all 
came  from  Zechariah  the  son  of  Iddo,  and  this  was  for  centuries 
the  unanimous  belief  among  both  Jews  and  Christians.  In  this 
case,  as  in  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  impulse  to  criticism  was 
given  by  a  defender  of  the  Scriptures.  More  than  a  hundred 
years  before  Astruc  published  his  famous  Conjectures,  Josejjh 
Mede  (f  1638),  in  explanation  of  Mt.  27^  ^-j  where  a  quotation 
from  Zc.  11^'  is  attributed  to  Jeremiah,  ventured  to  question  tra- 
dition. These  are  his  words:  "Nay,  indeed,  there  is  reason  to  sus- 
pect that  the  Holy  Spirit  [through  Matthew]  desired  to  claim  these 
three  chapters,  9, 10, 11,  for  their  real  author.  For  there  are  a  great 
many  things  in  them  which,  if  one  carefully  consider  them,  seem 
not  to  suit  the  time  of  Zechariah  as  well  as  that  of  Jeremiah."* 
This  modest  suggestion  did  not  at  once  attract  attention,  but  finally, 
in  1700,  it  was  adopted  and  extended  by  Bishop  Kidder,  who  said 
of  chs.  12-14,  "This  is  certain,  that  such  things  are  contained  in 
these  chapters  as  agree  with  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  but  by  no  means 
with  that  of  Zechariah."  f  He  was  followed  by  William  Whiston 
in  a  work  J  denounced  as  "a  monstrosity"  by  Carpzov,§  who 
thus  inaugurated  a  controversy  which  has  had  more  than  two 
sides,  and  still  remains  unsettled. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  title  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  of 
Zechariah  was  considered  a  suftlcient  guarantee  of  its  unity,  but 
since  it  has  been  generally  recognised  that  many  of  the  prophecies 
once  attributed  to  Isaiah  were  written  by  another  person  or  per- 
sons of  a  much  later  period  an  argument  of  this  sort  has  ceased  to 
be  convincing.     It  is  the  internal  evidence,  if  there  is  any,  on  which 

♦  Dissertalionum  eccUsiasl.  triga,  1653. 

t  The  Demonslralion  of  Ike  Messiah,  ii,  igp. 

X  An  Essay  Towards  Restoring  the  True  Text  oj  the  Old  Testament,  1722. 

§  Crit.  Sac.,  781. 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  233 

a  safe  conclusion  must  be  based.  When,  therefore,  the  question 
arises  whether  the  prophet  who  wrote  the  first  eight  chapters  of 
Zechariah  is  the  author  of  the  last  six  also,  the  way  to  settle  it  is 
to  compare  the  two  parts  the  one  with  the  other  in  their  most 
noticeable  features.  In  this  case,  since  the  peculiarities  of  the 
style  and  content  of  the  first  part  have  already  been  noted,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  examine  the  second  to  see  if  the  same  features, 
or  any  considerable  number  of  them,  are  reproduced  in  these  last 
chapters.  If  they  are  not,  that  is,  if  the  author  who  reveals  him- 
.self  there  is  not  recognisable  as  the  son  of  Iddo,  the  unity  of  the 
book  called  by  his  name  must  be  abandoned. 

The  first  thing  noted  concerning  the  prophecies  attributed  to 
Zechariah  was  that,  like  those  of  Haggai,  they  were  all  dated,  and, 
moreover,  that  they  contained  references  to  persons  and  events 
which  made  it  possible  to  verify  the  dates  given.  Now,  there  are 
no  dates  in  the  last  six  chapters,  nor  is  there  an  open  reference 
to  any  person  or  event  by  which  a  date  can  be  fixed.  Indeed, 
the  author,  if  there  be  but  one,  seems  at  times  purposely  to  have 
avoided  the  mention  of  names,  thus  making  his  utterances  rid- 
dles to  his  modern,  and  doubtless  to  some  of  his  earliest  readers. 
See  especially  11^  *^-. 

In  view  of  what  has  just  been  said,  one  does  not  expect  to  find 
the  first  person  used  here  as  it  is  in  the  first  eight  chapters.  There, 
it  will  be  remembered,  the  regular  form  of  introduction  was,  "Then 
came  the  word  of  Yahweh  of  Hosts  to  me."  Here  the  first  person 
occurs  only  in  11^  ^-j  where  the  introductory  formula  (v.  ^)  is  a 
strange  cross  between  the  one  heretofore  used  and  another  favour- 
ite with  Zechariah,  the  result  being,  "Thus  said  Yahweh  to  me."* 
See  also  "Then  said  Yahweh  to  me"  in  vv.  "•  ^^. 

The  fondness  of  Zechariah  for  visions  was  found  to  be  one  of 
his  prominent  characteristics.  There  are  no  visions  in  the  last 
six  chapters,  and  this  fact  has  sometimes  been  cited  as  proof  that 
these  chapters  were  not  written  by  him;  unfairly,  however,  since 
the  absence  of  visions  from  chs.  7  and  8  is  not  regarded  as  a  mark 
of  ungenuineness,  and  their  occurrence  in  chs.  9-14  woidd  not  mean 
that  Zechariah  wrote  these  chapters,  imless  it  could  be  shown  that 

*  The  Massoretic  text  has  "  my  God." 


234  ZECHARIAH 

the  given  visions  were  used  in  the  manner,  and  for  the  same  pur- 
pose, traceable  in  the  first  part  of  the  book.  If  they  revealed  an 
apocalyptical  tendency,  since,  as  has  been  shown,  Zechariah  was 
by  no  means  visionary,  they  would  have  a  contrary  significance. 

The  next  point  to  be  considered  is  the  literary  form  in  which  are 
cast  the  last  six  chapters  as  compared  with  the  first  eight.  It  was 
found  that  in  the  earlier  chapters  the  prophet  wrote  in  rather  mo- 
notonous prose,  only  now  and  then,  sometimes  apparently  almost 
unconsciously,  adopting  a  more  or  less  regular  rhythmical  move- 
ment. The  ninth  chapter  at  first  promises  little  better,  but,  by 
supplying  a  few  words  that  have  evidently  been  lost  and  omitting 
more  that  have  just  as  evidently  been  added,  vv.  ^""  are  trans- 
formed into  a  succession  of  double  tristichs  almost  as  regular  as 
the  lines  of  Second  Isaiah.  There  are  six  of  these  stanzas.  The 
first  part  of  the  poem,  in  form  as  well  as  in  content,  strongly  re- 
calls Am.  i^  ''•;  for,  if  the  introductory  phrase  and  the  useless  gloss 
"of  iron"  in  v.  ^  be  omitted,  there  will  remain  in  the  judgment  on 
Syria  nine  regular  lines,  or,  as  Harper  divides  them,  three  tris- 
tichs.* In  w.  ®'^  there  are  three  more.f  The  remaining  judg- 
ments are  not  so  regular,  in  the  form  in  which  they  have  been  trans- 
mitted, but  each  of  them  has  at  least  one  tristich.  It  is  this  pre- 
vailingly triple  arrangement  which  the  author  of  Zc.  9^"*"  follows, 
and  that  with  a  regularity  which  would  probably  not  have  been 
attempted  by  a  more  original  writer. 

With  9",  as  has  been  explained,  begins  a  new  section,  and  from 
this  point  onward  there  is  a  different  literary  form.  Not  that  the 
writer,  if  the  same,  here  passes  from  poetry  to  prose.  He  still 
measures  his  words,  and,  indeed,  by  the  three-toned  rule,  but  he 
now  puts  four  lines,  instead  of  twice  three,  into  a  stanza,  and  this 
arrangement  is  continued  as  far  as  v. '  of  the  eleventh  chapter. 
These  are  significant  facts,  and  they  admit  of  but  one  interpreta- 
tion. It  is  clear  that,  if  Zechariah  wrote  the  first  eight  chapters  of 
the  book  called  by  his  name,  he  cannot  have  written  the  sections 

♦  Harper,  by  including  the  introductory  formula  and  the  above-mentioned  gloss,  gets  one 
irregular  stanza  of  five  lines. 

t  In  this  case  there  is  another  gloss  "  to  deliver  to  Edom,"  besides  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord 
Yahweh"  at  the  beginning,  and  a  "saith  the  Lord  Yahweh"  at  the  end,  of  the  section  to  be 
eliminated. 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV         235 

(9^-1 1^)  that  have  just  been  described.  They  constitute  an  elab- 
orate poem;  he  in  his  undoubted  writings  never  attempted  to  put 
together  a  dozen  lines. 

The  next  section  (11^""  and  13^'®)  consists  mainly  of  a  prose  nar- 
rative, to  which  are  added  a  few  lines  in  a  movement  somewhat 
different  from  that  of  chs.  9  and  10.  These  lines,  which  are  vari- 
ations on  a  six-toned  model,  form  four  tristichs,  one  at  the  end  of 
ch.  II,  the  others  in  the  transposed  passage.  The  fact  that  they 
resemble  one  another  in  structure  shows  that  13^"®  should  follow 
ch.  II,  but  since  the  same  measure  appears  in  3',  the  use  of  it 
here  is  favourable  rather  than  unfavourable  to  the  authorship  of 
Zechariah. 

The  conclusion  with  reference  to  chs.  12  and  14  must  be 
that,  although  they  are  on  the  whole  more  rhythmical  than 
the  first  eight,  there  is  no  sustained  movement,  like  that  in  chs. 
9  and  10,  which  by  its  regularity  forces  itself  upon  the  reader's 
attention. 

Marti  says  of  i2'-i3«,  "It  is  impossible  to  discover  in  this  section  a  single 
and  consistent  metrical  form.  The  description  of  the  lamentation  in  12"-'* 
is  a  repetition  of  the  same  words  so  stereotyped  that  numerical  prevail  over 
poetical  considerations,  and  the  statement  concerning  the  prophetic  order  in 
i3'-6  follows  in  the  language  of  prose.  The  rest  seems  modelled  after  the  type 
of  the  tristich,  but  the  lines  in  the  tristichs  are  not  throughout  of  the  same 
length."  He  then  proceeds,  by  additions  and  omissions,  often  arbitrary  and 
sometimes  inconsistent,  to  adjust  the  te.xt  to  his  theory.  In  point  of  fact,  al- 
though it  is  possible  in  this  way  to  produce  a  succession  of  approximately  equal 
lines,  there  are  only  a  few  places  in  ch.  12  where  there  is  any  ground  for  sup- 
posing that  the  author  consciously  measured  his  words  as  he  wrote.  One  of 
these  is  v.  *,  where,  strangely  enough,  Marti  throws  the  measure  into  con- 
fusion by  including  the  introductory  formula,  and  substitutes  an  evident  gloss 
for  an  equally  evident  parallel  to  the  main  proposition.  See  the  comments; 
also  on  vv.  *.  8.  10.  12  f.. 

In  ch.  14  Marti  discovers  a  scheme  of  tetrastichs.  Three  of  these  he  con- 
structs out  of  the  first  five  verses  by  rejecting  the  whole  of  v.  ',  nearly  half  of 
v.  *  and  more  than  half  of  v.  ^,  and  leaving  a  lacuna  to  be  supplied  in  each  of 
the  last  two  verses;  but  it  will  puzzle  most  readers  to  find  traces  of  poetical 
form,  except  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  passage,  and  here  it  seems  to 
be  unintentional.  The  same  is  true  of  the  occasional  lines  in  the  remaining 
verses  of  the  chapter. 

The  comparison  between  the  first  and  second  parts  of  Zecha- 
riah as  respects  literary  form  must  now  be  supplemented  by  a  more 


T 


236  ZECHARIAH 

minute  inquiry,  namely,  whether  the  forms  of  expression  charac- 
teristic of  Zechariah  as  the  author  of  chs.  i-8  recur  in  the  last  six 
chapters  under  similar  circumstances. 


The  following  are  the  facts: 

"The  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  me,"  the  formula  by  which  the  prophet 
regularly  introduces  his  messages,  does  not  occur  in  these  chapters.  In  11* 
the  corresponding  formula  is,  "Thus  said  Yahweh  to  me." 

"Thus  saith  (said)  Yahweh,"  with  (17)  or  without  (2)  "of  Hosts,"  is  also 
conspicuous  by  its  absence,  the  case  just  cited  not  being  parallel. 

"Saying,"  which  is  noticeably  frequent  (29  t.)  in  the  first  eight  chapters, 
and  would  naturally  have  been  used  in  ii<  'f-,  occurs  neither  there  nor  else- 
where in  the  last  six. 

The  appeal  to  the  future,  "Then  shall  ye  know,"  etc.,  is  used  4  t.  in  the  first 
part  of  the  book,  but  not  at  all  in  the  second. 

"The  Lord  of  the  whole  earth"  is  a  title  for  God  that  would  have  suited  the 
thought  of  these  last  chapters,  but  it  is  not  used,  "the  King,  Yahweh  of 
Hosts,"  being  substituted  for  it. 

Zechariah  makes  large  use  of  rhetorical  questions,  but  there  is  only  one 
question  of  any  sort  after  the  eighth  chapter. 

The  use  of  the  participle,  with  or  without  a  preceding  helwld,*  or  in 
an  adverbial  sense,  is  frequent  (29  t.)  in  chs.  1-8.  Here  it  is  used  in  all 
only  12  t. 

A  number  of  words  were  found  to  be  characteristic  of  Zechariah.  They  are 
the  following:  'JN,  the  shorter  form  of  the  pron.  of  the  first  person  singular, 
is  used  e.xclusively  in  the  first,  but  only  2  out  of  6  t.  in  the  second,  part  of  the 
book.  in3,  in  the  sense  of  take  pleasure,  is  not  found  where  it  might  be  ex- 
j  pected,  even  in  ch.  i4.^oyi,  purpose,  also,  is  wanting.  Thn, appease,  might 
have  been  used  in  14'^-  '",  but  ninPE'n  was  preferred.  Nip  is  not  found  in  the 
sense  of  proclaim  in  these  chapters.  T'lNU',  remnant,  is  wanting,  t."^'  being 
used  in  14'  in  its  place.  3ir,  return,  where  it  might  be  used  adverbially  in 
the  sense  of  again,  is  replaced  by  ni;?.  pr,  dwell,  is  used  like  3U",  of  both  God 
and  men  in  chs.  1-8.  In  chs.  9-14  only  the  latter  occurs,  and  that  12  t.  lir, 
midst,  very  common  in  chs.  1-8,  docs  not  occur  in  9-14,  a^P  being  employed 
in  its  place. 


Various  other  words  are  cited  by  Eckardt,t  but  these  are  enough 
to  show  that  the  vocabulary  of  chs.  9-14  differs  appreciably  from 
that  of  1-8  in  respects  in  which  they  ought  to  agree,  if  they  were 
written  by  the  same  perrson. 

In  the  examination  of  chs.  1-8  it  was  noted  that  Zechariah  re- 
peatedly referred  to  "the  former  prophets."  There  are  no  such 
references  in  chs.  9-14.    This,  however,  does  not  mean  that  there 

*  njn.  t  ZAW.,  1893,  104  §. 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  237 

are  no  points  of  contact  between  these  chapters  and  other  prophetic 
writings.  There  are,  and  more  of  them  than  there  are  in  the  first 
part  of  the  book. 

The  following  is  a  list,  based  on  those  by  Stade  and  others,  of  passages  in 
the  case  of  which  there  may  be  any  kind  or  degree  of  dependence,  with  the 
passages  to  which  the  first  are  related  (Stade,  ZAW.,  1881,  41  ff.;  Kuiper, 
Zach.  ix-xvi,  ioi_^.;  Staerk,  Untersuchungen,  18  jf.): 

9',  if  it  is  "the  word"  that  is  on  the  land  of  Hadrak,  has  a  parallel  in  Is. 
98/'.  92  in  its  original  form  contained  no  reference  to  Tyre,  yet  there  is  evi- 
dently a  relation  of  dependence  between  it  and  Ez.  28^.  9'  f  ■  has  the  same  sub- 
ject, the  same  measure  and  the  same  number  of  lines  as  Am.  p'  '••  The  vari- 
ations from  the  latter  passage  are  in  harmony  with  Ez.  28".  9'"^  is  just  as 
dearly  related  to  Am.  i^-^.  The  phrase  "to  deliver  them  to  Edom"  in  v.  ', 
like  "to  Edom"  in  v.  ',  is  an  explanatory  gloss  suggested  by  Ez.  35^.  Comp. 
Harper.  There  are  also  reminders  of  Is.  20''  Jc.  252".  9^  has  behind  it  a  long 
course  of  development.  The  passages  of  which  its  phraseology  first  reminds 
one  are  Je.  23^  Zp.  3"  '■  Is.  6i"'  62".  Cf.  also  Is.  49^  sCf-.  9'".  The 
language  is  that  of  Mi.  s^/'",  but  the  thought  is  more  nearly  in  harmony  with 
4'.  9"  '•  recall  Is-  42',  but  especially  6ii-  '.  On  v.  '2,  see  Is.  40'.  "For 
trouble"  is  a  gloss  bringing  the  passage  into  closer  harmony  with  its  parallel. 
9"  describes  a  theophany,  but  it  does  not  resemble  that  of  Ex.  19'*  o-  so  much 
as  that  of  Jos.  lo'"  '•  or  that  of  i  S.  7'".  9I6  ff..  Yahweh  is  frequently  repre- 
sented as  a  shepherd  by  the  prophets,  but  the  most  elaborate  of  these  passages, 
and  the  one  most  nearly  related  to  this  one,  is  Ez.  34"  "■.  10'.  The  suc- 
cession, lightning,  rain,  herbage  is  found  also  in  Jb.  38^5  »-.  C/.  also  2826. 
10*.  If  9'^  betrays  dependence  on  Ez.  34"  '•,  it  is  probable  that  this  verse  was 
influenced  by  Ez.  34*  '■.  Cf.  also  Je.  23'  '-.  10'  combines  Je.  23"  and  Ez. 
3410-  17.  At  the  end  one  is  reminded  of  Jb.  39"  ''■.  lo*.  If  the  following 
verses  betray  acquaintance  with  Is.  ii"  ' ■,  this  one  will  be  only  another  way 
of  putting  the  thought  of  11".  10^.  If  10'  was  in  part  suggested  by  Je.  23^, 
this  verse  must  be  a  reminiscence  of  Je.  23*  Is.  ii'^  f-.  lo^  continues  the 
thought  of  Je.  23'.  Cf.  also  Is.  7'*  27".  10'  '•.  The  thought  is  more  than 
once  expressed  in  earlier  writings.  Cf.  Je.  23*  Ho.  11'  Is.  11"  Mi.  7"  '•. 
10"  has  a  strong  resemblance  to  Is.  11''.  ii'-  ^^.  The  representation  of 
great  men  or  nations  by  great  trees  is  a  common  figure.  The  passage  most 
resembling  this  one  is  Is.  2".  Cf.  also  Ju.  9'^.  n'  looks  like  an  imitation 
of  Je.  2536-  38.     On  the  "pride  of  the  Jordan,"  see  Je.  12*. 

ir^.  On  "the  flock  for  slaughter,"  see  Je.  12'.  ii^  combines  features  of 
Ez.  34'  Je.  50'  Ho.  12^/8.  11'.  If  II*  was  suggested  by  Ho.  12"^,  probably 
"the  traders"  of  this  verse  are  from  Ho.  128/7.  For  the  "staves,"  see  Ez. 
37'5  5..  ii9  looks  like  an  imitation  of  Ez.  34^  '■.  Cf.  also  v.  '^.  11".  Cf. 
v.  7.  ii'2.  The  amount  is  the  same  as  in  Ex.  21^2.  nie.  Cf.  v.  ».  11". 
The  language  is  that  of  Je.  50^*  3-,  but  the  thought  seems  to  be  that  of  Ez.  30". 
13^  has  the  thought  of  Ez.  34'^-,  with  various  additions.  Cf.  also  Is.  i'^. 
13'  resembles  in  form  Ez.  512.  139.  "I  will  smelt  thee"  recalls  Is.  i^;  also 
4810.  The  latter  half  of  the  verse  is  more  like  Ho.  2»/=5.  Cf.  Ez.  362* 
3f-  ". 


'/ 


238  ZECHARIAH 

12',  in  part  almost  Is.  51",  more  freely  reproduces  a  part  of  42'.  12'. 
"The  cup  of  reeling"  is  a  familiar  figure.  In  this  case  the  writer  combines 
the  thought  of  Je.  51'  and  2S^'>'-.  i2<.  The  three  nouns  are  found  in  Dt. 
28".  i2«  recalls  Is.  9'»/2o.  i2«.  The  thought  is  that  of  Is.  31'  '•.  Cf.  also 
Dt.  4";  perhaps  Is.  63'>o-.  12',  if  it  refers  to  the  protection  of  the  city, 
furnishes  a  parallel  to  Is.  31'  or  17''  ■••  i2'"'-  The  Spirit  works  reformation, 
as  in  Ez.  36^^  '■.  Cf.  also  Je.  6-*.  1$^  also  reminds  one  of  Ezekiel.  Cf. 
36*'  ".  13-  recalls  Ez.  36*;  also  Ho.  2"/".  i^'  has  points  of  resemblance 
with  Dt.  i3«  '■ 

141.  The  peculiar  expression  "a  dy  to  Yahwch"  occurs  Is.  2"  Ez.  30'. 
14'.  There  are  various  features  which  ch.  14  has  in  common  with  Ez.  38. 
This  verse  corresponds  to  v.  '*  of  that  passage  rather  than  Jo.  4/3".  Cf.  also 
Ez.  39'.  14*  '•.  This  theophany  strongly  resembles  that  of  Dt.  33'.  The 
whole  follows  V.  s  as  Ez.  38"  '■  follow  v.  ".  14'  is  only  another  way  of  put- 
ting the  thought  of  Is.  30''  and  60"  '•  14^  Another  form  of  the  picture  of 
Ez.  47i«-.  C/.  also  Jo.  4/3IS.  m'".  Like  Mi.  4>  (Is.  a^),  but  more  literal.  Cf. 
also  Je.  3i'8.  14".  The  first  clause  in  a  modified  form  is  found  in  Je.  33", 
but  the  thought  is  more  fully  elaborated  in  Ez.  24^'-^-  14'^-  An  enlargement 
on  the  "pestilence"  of  Ez.  38".  14"  is  the  equivalent  of  Ez.  38=1.  14"  cor- 
responds to  Ez.  39'".  14"  holds  a  middle  position  between  Mi.  4'  "•  (Is. 
2^  ■•)  and  Je.  3'^,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Is.  66^3  on  the  other.  142"  '•.  The 
sanctity  of  Jerusalem  is  repeatedly  predicted  in  the  earlier  prophetical  writ- 
ings: for  example,  Je.  31".     On  the  legend  quoted,  see  Ex.  28".    Cf.  also 

Jo.  4/3''- 

In  the  remarks  accompanying  the  above  list  care  has  been  taken  to  avoid 
the  question  whether  the  passages  cited  from  chs.  9-14  are  dependent  on  those 
that  they  more  or  less  closely  resemble  or  vice  versa. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  relative  date  of  these  chap- 
ters. It  is  proper,  however,  to  note  at  this  point  some  facts  with 
reference  to  the  list  as  compared  with  that  in  the  Introduction 
to  chs.  1-8. 

The  first  thing  that  one  will  naturally  notice  is  that  this  list  is 
nearly  twice  as  long  as  the  other.  This  fact,  however,  has  not  so 
much  significance  as  might  at  first  sight  be  supposed,  since  so  much 
of  the  first  part  is  occupied  by  the  visions  that  it  really  furnishes  only 
about  half  as  large  a  field  for  possible  reference  to  other  writings 
as  the  second.  The  most  interesting  feature  of  this  list,  therefore, 
is  not  the  number  of  points  of  contact  with  other  books  it  contains, 
but  the  distribution  of  the  passages  to  which  those  cited  may  with 
more  or  less  reason  be  regarded  as  parallels.  The  facts  are  as  fol- 
lows: There  are  none  from  Haggai.  There  are  relatively  fewer  from 
Micah,  Jeremiah  and  Second  Isaiah,  and  only  about  as  many  from 
Amos  and  First  Isaiah ;  but  there  are  twice  as  many  from  Hosea  and 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  239 

almost  three  times  as  many  from  Ezekiel.  Note  also  that  in  this  list 
Job  appears  twice  and  Deuteronomy  three  times.  These  are  inter- 
esting items.  One  of  them  has  a  bearing  on  the  present  object.  It 
is  the  absence  of  any  apparent  acquaintance  with  Haggai;  which 
certainly  is  not  favourable  to  the  opinion  that  Zechariah  is  the 
author  of  these  as  of  the  first  eight  chapters. 

The  comparison  between  the  first  and  second  parts  of  the  book 
can,  and  should,  be  carried  beyond  mere  externals.  In  doing  so 
it  will  be  necess  ry  again  to  refer  to  the  visions,  not,  however,  this 
time,  as  literary  devices,  but  as  a  source  of  information  concerning 
the  ideas  directly  or  indirectly  taught  by  Zechariah.  In  the  In- 
troduction to  the  first  eight  chapters  it  was  noted  that  the  prophet 
not  only  describes  himself  as  receiving  instruction  through  an  an- 
gelic interpreter,  but  that  he  represents  Yahweh  as  generally  hid- 
ing himself  from  human  eyes  and  employing  angels  to  deliver 
and  execute  his  decrees  among  men.  In  chs.  9-14  there  is  a  differ- 
ent conception  of  God's  ways.  It  shows  itself  in  9",  where,  in- 
deed, "the  holy  ones"  are  mentioned,  but  as  the  attendants,  not 
the  messengers,  of  Yahweh.  In  fact,  this  chapter  is  an  excellent 
example  of  biblical  apocalyptic,  the  most  prominent  features  of 
which  are  the  sudden  and  terrific  appearance  of  the  Deity  to  rescue 
his  people  in  their  extremity  and  the  immediate  transformation  of 
existing  conditions  for  their  benefit.  As  such  it  is  unlike  anything 
in  the  first  eight  chapters. 

Apocalyptic  has  other  striking  characteristics.  Charles  {DB., 
art.  Apocalyptic  Literature)  mentions  three.  In  the  first  place, 
it  "despises  the  present."  Such  pessimism  finds  expression  es- 
pecially in  ii"-  ^,  where  the  writer  warns  his  people  that  the  best 
of  them  must  still  go  through  fiery  affliction,  and  14^  where  even 
the  capture  of  their  holy  city  is  predicted.  There  is  nothing  of 
this  kind  in  chs.  1-8.  Zechariah,  it  is  true,  acknowledges  that 
his  present  is  a  day  of  "small  things,"  but  he  sees  hope  in  it, 
and  expects  the  change  to  come,  not  by  an  external  fiat,  but 
through  internal  improvement.  Indeed,  in  ch.  8  he  already  finds 
the  good  time  coming,  and  encourages  his  people  to  recognise  it 
by  transforming  their  fasts  into  seasons  of  "joy  and  rejoicing." 
Cf.  V.  '\ 


24©  ZECHARIAH 

Another  characteristic  of  apocalyptic  is  "an  indefinitely  wider 
view"  than  is  usual  in  prophecy.  Here  it  sees,  first,  "all  the  peo- 
ples round"  (12^),  and  then  "all  the  nations"  (14^),  gathering 
against  the  insignificant  city  of  Jerusalem,  only  to  be  repulsed 
and  overthrown  at  sight  of  Yahweh.  This  also  is  unlike  Zecha- 
riah.  There  is  no  hint  of  it  in  any  of  his  recognised  prophecies. 
In  fact,  by  the  time  the  last  of  them  was  written,  or  uttered,  he 
knew  that  no  such  riot  among  the  nations  as  Ezekiel  pictures  was 
possible.  He  seems  to  have  been  content  if  his  people  might  en- 
joy, as  they  did,  the  semblance  of  self-government  under  the  a-gis 
of  the  king  of  Persia. 

Finally,  according  to  Charles,  apocalyptic  is  characterised  by 
"ruthless  cruelty"  in  the  fate  predicted  for  the  enemies  of  the 
Chosen  People.  He  does  not  refer  to  the  "fire"  and  the  "sword" 
with  which  the  prophets  generally  threaten  their  own.  as  well  as 
surrounding  nations,  but  to  tortures  which  are  the  hideous  and 
dreadful  reflection  of  the  things  the  Jews  suffered  from  their  op- 
pressors. There  is  a  trace  of  such  cruelty  in  9^^  and  ii^  but  it  is 
most  apparent  in  14^^-  ^^,  where,  as  in  Is.  66^^,  the  writer  seems  to 
gloat  over  the  agonies  described.  This  certainly  is  not  the  spirit 
that  dictated  the  twice-given  exhortation,  "Devise  not  evil  one 
against  another  in  your  hearts"  (7*"  8"),  and  which  represents 
the  nations  as  flocking  to  Jerusalem,  not  from  fear  of  a  threatened 
plague  (14^),  but  because  they  have  heard  that  God  has  revealed 
himself  there.     Cf.  S^. 

The  last  point  recalls  a  term  used  in  the  Introduction  to  the  first 
eight  chapters  to  indicate  one  of  the  most  noticeable  characteris- 
tics of  Zechariah  and  his  utterances.  It  was  sobriety.  It  certainly 
cannot  be  used  of  these  last  chapters  as  a  whole.  The  term  ex- 
travagance would  better  suit  some,  at  least,  of  them.  Nor  is  the 
cruelty  displayed  the  only  evidence  to  this  effect.  It  appears  in 
the  writer's  picture  of  the  future.  In  the  matter  of  the  extent  of 
the  Messianic  kingdom  the  data  are  conflicting.  Thus,  from  chs. 
9/.  it  would  appear  that  the  writer  claimed  as  the  final  heritage 
of  his  people  all  that  was  ever  promised  them,  from  the  land  of 
Hadrak  in  the  north  to  the  desert  south  of  Gaza  (9*"0,  so  extended 
a  domain,  and  more,  being  required  because  the  tribes  of  Israel  as 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  241 

well  as  Judah  are  to  be  restored  to  their  country.  Cf.  lo^-  ^".  In 
chs.  12-14,  as  in  the  first  eight,  nothing  is  said  of  Israel,  but  in 
14^°  the  land  of  which  Jerusalem  is  the  capital  is  described  as  ex- 
tending only  from  Geba  on  the  north  to  Rimraon  on  the  south  of 
the  city,  that  is,  as  including  only  the  territory  of  the  earlier  king- 
dom of  Judah.  These  two  forecasts  are  irreconcilable  the  one 
with  the  other.  Moreover,  if  Zechariah  wrote  chs.  1-8,  he  can 
hardly  be  the  author  of  either  of  them. 

The  teaching  of  chs.  9-14  differs  from  that  of  the  first  eight  with 
reference  to  the  head  of  the  future  kingdom.  Zechariah  declares 
the  promise  concerning  him  fulfilled  in  Zerubbabel,  a  prince  al- 
ready born  and  present  in  the  community.  CJ.  4^  (P^-.  From 
9^"^'',  on  the  other  hand,  one  learns  that  he  has  not  yet  appeared, 
that,  in  fact,  he  mil  not  appear  until  the  country  over  which  he  is 
destined  to  rule  has  been  subdued  for  him.  There  are  no  other 
references  to  him;  for  ii^^-  is  anything  but  a  Messianic  prophecy, 
while  in  ch.  12  it  is  the  whole  house  of  David,  and  not  any  particu- 
lar member  of  it,  who  is  to  be  "like  God"  and  "like  the  angel  of 
Yahweh"  before  the  people. 

The  modesty  of  Zechariah's  expectations  concerning  conditions  in 
general  in  the  future  has  been  noted.  He  promises  his  people  only 
that  they  shall  have  a  peace  and  prosperity  that  permits  long  and 
happy  lives.  In  ch.  9  also  peace  is  promised,  but  here  the  prom- 
ise includes  "the  nations."  Thus  far  there  has  been  no  serious 
divergence,  but  according  to  ch.  14  when  Yahweh  comes  to  the 
rehef  of  Jerusalem  all  things  will  become  new.  The  sun  will  hover 
over  Judea,  banishing  cold  and  darkness  and  making  an  endless 
summer  day.  At  the  same  time  the  rugged  and  often  barren  hills 
will  smooth  themselves  into  a  plain  through  which  eastward  and 
westward  wUl  flow  perennial  streams  to  fructify  the  soil.  Even 
if  this  picture  is  to  be  taken  figuratively,  there  is  still  difference 
enough  between  it  and  the  idyllic  description  of  ch.  8  to  warrant 
one  in  hesitating  to  attribute  both  to  the  same  author. 

Finally,  it  remains  to  compare  the  emphasis  on  ethical  matters 
in  the  first,  and  the  lack  of  it  in  the  second,  part  of  the  book.  In 
his  insistence  on  justice  and  other  social  \artues,  as  has  been  shown, 
Zechariah  in  the  undoubted  prophecies  is  a  worthy  follower  of 


242  ZECHARIAH 

Amos  and  Isaiah.  The  same  cannot  be  said  for  the  author,  or 
authors,  of  chs.  9-14.  In  fact,  although  there  are  a  few  passages 
from  which  one  may  infer  a  regard  for  justice  and  kindness,  es- 
pecially toward  Jews,  there  are  no  ethical  precepts.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  matter  of  sanctity,  in  the  sense  of  exclusive  devotion  to 
Yahweh  and  freedom  from  ceremonial  uncleanness,  is  prominent, 
and  the  motto  of  the  new  order,  according  to  14'"  is  not  mutual 
good-will,  but  "Holiness  to  Yahweh,"  even  in  the  bells  of  the  horses. 
It  is  clear  that  Zechariah,  though  a  priest,  after  having  written  ch.  8, 
would  hardly  in  his  last  message  to  his  people  have  put  so  much 
stress  upon  externals. 


The  conclusion  to  which  this  comparison  points  is  unmistakable;  yet,  be- 
fore closing  the  case,  it  is  only  fair  to  consider  the  arguments  for  the  Zecharian 
authorship  of  chs.  9-14  with  which  Robinson  concludes  his  discussion.  (The 
Prophecies  of  Zechariah,  87^.)  He  claims  (i)  that  "the  fundamental  ideas 
of  both  parts  are  the  same,"  giving  certain  speciiications.  (a)  "An  unusually 
deep,  spiritual  tone."  The  passages  cited  from  chs.  9-14  are  9'  10"'  12" 
148.  ao  f ..  Of  these  lo'^  is  an  addition  to  the  text  and  14'  a  description  of  one 
of  the  physical  features  of  the  new  Judah.  The  others  reveal,  it  is  true,  a 
zeal  for  religion,  but  in  only  one  of  them  (12"')  is  there  any  indication  of  spir- 
itual experience,  (b)  "A  similar  attitude  of  hope  and  expectation,  notably 
concerning  (a)  the  return  of  the  whole  nation."  This,  as  has  been  shown,  is 
a  prevailing  idea  in  chs.  9-1 1,  but  nowhere  else  is  there  a  genuine  reference 
to  Israel.  (/S)  "Jerusalem  shall  be  inhabited."  Note,  however,  that,  as  h;is 
been  explained,  the  Jerusalem  of  14'",  perched  aloft  over  an  unbroken  plain, 
is  not  the  Jerusalem  of  chs.  1-8.  (7)  "The  temple  shall  be  built."  It  is  only 
in  the  first  part  that  the  temple  is  still  in  process  of  erection.  In  13^  it  is  evi- 
dently already  completed;  nor  is  there,  either  in  this  passage  or  elsewhere  in 
the  second  part,  anything  to  forbid  the  assumption  that  worship  therein  has 
long  since  been  resumed.  (5)  The  "Messianic  hope  is  peculiarly  strong." 
This  is  true,  but,  as  has  been  shown,  the  "king"  of  ch.  9  is  not  the  "Shoot" 
of  the  first  part,  (e)  "Peace  and  prosperity  are  expected."  This  also  is 
only  partially  correct;  for  10"  has  the  only  reference  in  chs.  9-14  to  the  mate- 
rial benefits  for  which  Zechariah  looked,  and  it  is  an  adddition  to  the  text, 
(f)  "The  idea  of  God's  providence  as  extending  to  the  whole  earth."  Note, 
however,  as  has  been  shown,  that  the  method  by  which  he  governs  the  world 
is  by  no  means  the  same  in  both  parts,  (c)  "The  prophet's  attitude  toward 
Judah."  See  the  criticism  on  (b)  (a),  (d)  "The  prophet's  attitude  toward 
the  nations."  It  has  been  shown  that  the  tone  of  the  second  part,  especially 
chs.  II  and  14,  is  much  more  stern  and  cruel  than  that  of  chs.  1-8,  and  that, 
whereas  in  ch.  8  the  nations  are  drawn  to  Jerusalem,  according  to  ch.  14  they 
are  driven  thither. 

(2)  Robinson  claims  further  that  "there  are  peculiarities  of  thought  com- 
mon to  both  parts."    The  specifications  are  as  follows:  (a)  "The  habit  of 


THE   AUTHORSHIP   OF   CHAPTERS   IX-XIV  243 

dwelling  on  the  same  thought."  The  passages  cited  from  chs.  1-8  are 
214  f./io  f.  512.  13  84.  6.  21.  i2.  which,  however,  do  not  justify  the  statement  based 
on  them,  for  in  both  2'^  '•/"•  '■  and  6'2  '.  one  of  the  identical  clauses  is  an  ac- 
cretion, in  8<  '•  the  scenes  described  are  not  the  same  and  in  S"'  the  clause 
"and  to  seek,"  etc.,  is  probably  a  gloss  borrowed  from  v.  22,  while  in  this  latter 
verse  the  repetition  of  "to  appease  Yahweh"  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  Zechariah, 
but  a  familiar  feature  of  Hebrew  composition  of  which  there  are  several  ex- 
amples in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  (b)  "The  habit  of  expanding  one 
fundamental  thought  into  the  unusual  number  of  five  parallel  clauses." 
This,  too,  is  entirely  mistaken.  The  first  case  cited  from  chs.  1-8  is  6'',  where 
there  are  indeed  five  lines,  but  the  last  five  of  a  stanza  of  si.\',  the  first  having, 
through  the  carelessness  of  the  Massoretes,  been  attached  to  the  preceding 
verse.  Cf.  3'.  In  i"  the  five  clauses  are  not  parallel,  the  first  two  being 
merely  introductory  and  the  last  three  a  complete  tristich.  In  3'  the  latter 
half  of  the  verse  is  a  gloss,  and  in  the  ne.xt  verse  the  arrangement  is  evidently 
accidental.  In  the  passages  cited  from  chs.  9-14  there  is  still  less  support  for 
the  supposed  peculiarity,  (c)  "The  habit  of  referring  to  a  thought  already 
introduced"  is  only  another  name  for  the  tendency  to  favour  certain  ideas 
or  expressions.  It  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue  unless  the 
thoughts  or  expressions  are  the  same.  Since,  therefore,  Robinson  makes 
this  claim  in  only  three  instances  (3'  and  13^;  3^  and  14I6;  52  and  14'°),  and  in 
all  of  them  unwarrantably,  the  point  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  well  taken, 
(d)  "The  use  made  of  the  cardinal  number  two."  It  is  plain  that  such  a 
usage  can  be  called  a  peculiarity  only  when  it  is  more  or  less  arbitrary,  which 
it  is  not  in  any  of  the  cases  cited  except  9'^,  where  the  writer  is  borrowing  from 
a  predecessor,  (e)  "The  resort  to  symbolic  actions";  a  favourite  method  of 
instruction  with  the  prophets,  of  which  there  are  only  two  examples  in  each 
part  of  the  book,  (f)  "The  habit  of  drawing  lessons  from  the  past."  The 
passages  cited  from  chs.  1-8  which  really  illustrate  this  point  all  contain  refer- 
ences to  "the  former  prophets,"  of  which,  as  has  been  shown,  there  is  no  in- 
stance in  chs.  9-14. 

(3)  Another  indication  of  unity  in  the  book  of  Zechariah,  according  to 
Robinson,  is  found  in  "certain  peculiarities  of  diction  and  style."  Under 
this  head  he  first  quotes  a  list  of  words  common  to  both  parts  from  Eckardt, 
to  which  he  adds  twelve  words  and  phrases.  CJ.  ZAW.,  1893,  104.  Two  of 
those  given  by  Eckardt,  j.UJ  and  -\yj,  are  omitted  by  Robinson.  Of  these 
twelve  one,  K'in,  with  DN,  is  used  only  in  the  first  part,  one,  mc3,  is  an  error  of 
the  first  part,  and  five,  mh,  ]n, nj7r,  nov  inn,  are  differently  used  in  the  two  parts, 
while  four,  j'^D^  hy.  ]VTS  na.  noiN,  HNC,  of  the  remaining  five  are  so  common 
that  their  absence  would  be  more  noticeable  than  their  appearance  in  either 
part.  Of  the  original  list  Eckardt  himself  says  that  these  points  of  contact 
"which  are,  in  fact,  not  more  numerous  than  those  between  Zechariah  and 
any  other  prophet,  are  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  differences  be- 
tween him  and  the  author  of  the  second  part  of  the  book";  and  he  follows  this 
statement  with  a  longer  list  of  words  used  in  different  senses  or  instead  of  each 
other  in  the  two  parts.  In  conclusion  he  says,  "These  differences  would  be 
enough  to  prove  that  chs.  9-14  cannot  have  come  from  the  same  author  as 
chs.  1-8."  In  this  conclusion  Robinson  refuses  to  concur;  but  his  reasons  are 
not  convincing.  For  example,  in  two  of  the  three  cases  in  which  he  finds 
similar  modes  of  expression  in  both  parts  his  arguments  are  based  on  inter- 


244  ZECHARIAH 

polations;  of  the  fifteen  vocatives  cited  from  the  two  parts  only  nine  are  dear 
cases  of  apostrophe;  and  of  the  examples  of  clumsy  diction,  those  (3)  of  the 
second  part  are  all  from  la'^",  where  formal  repetition  is  in  order.  Finally, 
in  view  of  the  variations  in  the  use  or  neglect  of  the  vowel  letters,  it  is  hardly 
safe  to  regard  the  occurrence  of  nine  cases  of  inconsistency  in  the  first  part 
of  the  book  and  five  in  the  second,  all  of  which  may  be  mistakes  of  copyists, 
as  "one  of  the  strongest  evidences  that  it  was  all  written  by  one  hand." 

(4)  The  next  argument  is  that  "Zc.  1-8  shows  familiarity  with  the  same 
books  of  prophecy  so  often  quoted  by  the  author  of  chs.  9-14";  the  answer  to 
which  is  that,  as  has  been  shown,  although  most  of  the  books  with  which 
parallels  may  be  found  are  the  same,  the  number  of  coincidences  with  some 
of  them  is  very  different. 

(5)  The  final  argument  used  by  Robinson,  "the  variety  of  critical  opin- 
ion," is  obviously  weak,  since  the  critics,  however  widely  they  may  differ 
from  one  another  on  the  date  of  chs.  9-14,  are  almost  unanimous  in  denying 
that  they  can  have  been  written  by  Zechariah. 

Having  thus  shown  the  weakness  of  the  arguments  for  the  tra- 
ditional view  with  reference  to  the  authorship  of  the  book  of  Zech- 
ariah, it  is  time  to  consider  the  critical  opinions  that  have  been 
reached  by  modern  scholarship. 

Mede,  the  first  to  break  with  tradition,  attributed  chs.  9-1 1  to 
Jeremiah,  his  reasons  being  (i)  that  there  is  really  no  scriptural 
authority  for  insisting  that  Zechariah  wrote  them,  but  (2)  that  there 
is  such  authority  in  Mt.  27**  for  attributing  them  to  Jeremiah,  and 
(3)  that  their  content  is  of  a  character  to  justify  the  belief  that  he 
was  their  author.  Mede's  earliest  followers  differed  from  him 
only  in  applying  his  reasoning  to  the  remaining  chapters  of  the 
book,  but  Archbishop  Newcome*  made  a  new  departure,  main- 
taining that  chs.  9-14  must  be  divided,  chs.  9-1 1  being  consid- 
erably carHer  than  the  rest.     This  is  his  statement: 

"The  last  si.x  chapters  are  not  expressly  assigned  to  Zechariah;  are  un- 
connected with  those  which  precede;  the  three  first  of  them  are  unsuitable  in 
many  parts  to  the  time  when  Zechariah  lived;  all  of  them  have  a  more  adorned 
and  poetical  turn  of  composition  than  the  eight  first  chapters;  and  they  mani- 
festly break  the  unity  of  the  prophetical  book.  I  conclude  from  internal 
marks  in  c.  ix.  x.  xi.  that  these  three  chapters  were  written  much  earlier 
than  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  and  before  the  captivity  of  the  ten  tribes.  Israel  is 
mentioned,  c.  ix.  i,  xi.  14;  Ephraim  c.  ix.  10,  13,  x.  7;  and  Assyria  c.  x. 
10,  II.  ...  They  seem  to  suit  Hosea's  age  and  manner.  .  .  .  The  xiith, 
xiiith,  and  xivth  chapters  form  a  distinct  prophecy,  and  were  written  after 
the  death  of  Josiah;  c.  xii.  11.  ...  I  incline  to  think  that  the  author  lived 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Babylonians.    See  on  c.  xiii.  2-6." 

*  The  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,   1785. 


THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  245 

The  view  thus  stated  found  a  friendly  reception  on  the  Conti- 
nent, where  the  way  had  been  prepared  for  it  by  Flugge's  more 
radical  hypothesis,  by  Doederlein  and  others. 

Fliigge,  Die  Weissagungen  welche  hey  den  Schriften  des  Propheten  Sacharjas 
beygebogen  sind,  1784. 

He  divides  chs.  9-14  into  nine  distinct  prophecies,  as  follows:  9;  lo'  '•; 
io3-i2;  iii-3;  ii4-i7;  i2i-9;  i2"'-i3S;  13'"';  14;  to  which  he  assigns  various  dates. 
He  explains  their  appearance  in  the  book  of  Zechariah  by  supposing  that  they 
were  preserved  by  this  prophet,  or  given  their  present  place  in  the  collection 
to  which  his  book  belongs  by  some  one  else  before  Malachi  was  added.  His 
reasons  for  separating  them  from  chs.  i-8,  as  compiled  by  Burger  (119),  are: 
the  testimony  of  Matthew;  the  absence  of  dates;  the  space  between  chs.  8  and 
9  in  Kenn.  195;  a  difference  of  style;  the  absence  of  allusions  to  the  former 
prophets;  the  absence  of  symbolism,  except  in  ch.  1 1 ;  the  absence  of  angels, 
except  in  12';  the  appearance  of  parallelism;  a  difference  in  content;  the  ri- 
valry between  the  two  kingdoms;  the  unsuitableness  of  heralding  a  king  under 
Persian  rule;  the  absence  of  a  motive  for  predicting  evil  to  Tyre,  Sidon,  etc. 

Later  it  was  somewhat  modified  by  Bertholdt,*  who  attributes 
chs.  9-1 1  to  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Jeberechiah,  a  contemporary  of 
Isaiah  (Is.  8"),  and  12-14  to  an  author  of  the  period  just  before  the 
fall  of  the  Judean  monarchy;  and  from  his  time  onward  it  has  had 
more  defenders  than  that  which  attributes  chs.  9-14  to  a  single 
author.  Among  those  who  have  adopted  it  are  Gesenius,t  Maurer, 
Hitzig,  Ewald,J  Bleek,§  v.  Ortenberg,**  Davidson,ff  Reuss,  Brus- 
ton,JJ  Orelli,  Konig,§§  and  Griitzmacher.***  The  arguments  in 
support  of  it  are  largely  drawn  from  statements  and  allusions  that 
are  supposed  to  point  to  the  dates  above  mentioned,  or  others  pre- 
vious to  the  Exile.  The  question  now  is  whether  the  inferences 
drawn  from  the  given  data  are  correct. 

First,  it  is  claimed  that  the  appearance  of  the  names  Hadrak, 
Damascus  and  the  principal  cities  of  Phoenicia  and  Philistia  in 
9^'^''  implies  that  the  peoples  inhabiting  them  were  autonomous, 
and  that,  since  they  were  subdued  by  Tiglath-pileser  III,  and 
thenceforward  formed  parts  of  the  Assyrian,  Babylonian  or  Per- 
sian empire,  this  prophecy  antedates  734  B.C.     Indeed,  Ewald  and 

*  EM.*,  1697  if.  t  Isaiah,  327.  t  Proph.,  i,  248  ff.,  ii,  52  /. 

§  Einl.*,  440  ff.  **  Bestandlheile  des  Buches  Sachurja,  68  ff. 

tt  Introd.,  iii,  329  ff.  %%  Hisloire  de  la  Litteralure  ProphHique,  116  ff. 

§§  Einl.,  366  ff.  ***  Unlersuchungen,  4$  ff. 


246  ZECHARIAH 

others,  including  Griitzmacher,  regard  it  as  a  prediction  of  the 
invasion  of  Palestine  by  the  Assyrian  king  in  that  year.  This,  at 
first  sight,  seems  a  plausible  suggestion,  but  it  will  not  bear  exami- 
nation. 

In  the  first  place,  as  is  proven  by  the  woes  pronounced  against  some  of  the 
cities  here  mentioned  in  Je.  47  and  elsewhere,  the  little  states  in  and  about 
Palestine  were  not  lost  in  the  shadows  of  the  great  powers  on  which  they  were 
dependent,  but,  so  long  as  they  were  of  any  importance,  remained  individual 
objects  of  interest  to  the  Hebrew  prophets.  (The  clause  "  before  Pharaoh 
smote  Gaza"  in  v.  '  is  a  gloss.  Giesebrecht.)  If,  therefore,  Zc.  q'-'",  was 
written  by  a  contemporary  of  Isaiah,  the  proof  to  that  effect  must  be  sought 
elsewhere  than  in  the  mere  mention  of  the  threatened  cities.  The  truth  is 
that  it  cannot  be  found,  but  that  such  evidence  as  there  is  points  to  a  later 
origin.  Note,  for  example,  that,  while  Ephraim  is  mentioned  in  v.  ">,  the 
Hebrew  capital  is  Sion,  that  is,  Jerusalem;  in  other  words,  that  the  author 
cherishes  a  prospect  of  reunion  among  the  twelve  tribes  for  which  there  was 
no  warrant  until  the  northern  kingdom  had  been  overthrown.  Again,  ob- 
serve that  the  king  described  in  vv.  »  '•  is  not  the  conquering  hero  of  Is. 
g\/2  B.^  but  a  composite  character  with  a  decided  resemblance  to  the  Servant 
of  Yahweh  of  Is.  40  jf.  Finally,  there  is  unmistakable  evidence  of  develop- 
ment in  the  fact  that,  while  Amos  predicts  the  destruction  of  Damascus  and 
the  rest,  the  author  of  this  passage  expects  some,  at  least,  of  the  Philistines  to 
be  spared  and  incorporated  into  the  new  Hebrew  commonwealth. 

A  second  point  on  which  stress  is  laid  by  the  defenders  of  a  com- 
paratively early  date,  at  least  for  chs.  9-1 1,  is  that  in  lo^*^  Egypt 
and  Assyria  represent  the  remotest  regions  to  which  the  Hebrews 
have  been  scattered,  and  in  v.  "  these  countries  are  threatened; 
from  which  facts  it  is  argued  that  ch.  10  must  have  been  written 
before  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  b.c,  when  the  Assyrian  em- 
pire was  overthrown.  This,  if  the  other  indications  pointed  in  the 
same  direction,  would  be  a  legitimate  conclusion;  but  when  the 
usage  of  the  Old  Testament  with  reference  to  the  name  Assyria  is 
examined,  It  becomes  very  doubtful,  the  fact  being  that,  as  will 
appear  later,  "Assyria"  is  actually  employed  to  designate,  not 
only  the  empire  properly  so  called,  but  Babylonia,  Persia  and 
even  Syria. 

Thus  far  attention  has  been  given  only  to  allusions  in  chs.  9-14 
to  contemporary  peoples.  There  are  others  to  internal  conditions 
as  they  existed  when  these  chapters  were  written.  The  references 
to  Ephraim,  as  distinguished  from  Judah,  have  been  considered 


THE    AUTHORSHIP   OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  247 

significant.  One,  that  in  9",  has  already  been  cited.  The  others 
are  in  9^^  10®  (Joseph)  10''  11"  (Israel).*  In  the  case  of  9^"  it  was 
found  that  Ephraim  and  Judah  (Jerusalem)  were  not  two  indepen- 
dent states  existing  when  the  passage  was  written,  but  components 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom  of  the  future,  and  this,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  references  to  Ephraim  or  Joseph  are  connected  with  a 
promise  of  restoration  from  exile,  is  the  interpretation  that  must 
be  given  to  9^^  and  10®  ^-.f  Moreover,  those  who  refer  11*  ^-  to 
the  same  author  as  9"-!!^  will  have  to  admit  that  the  "brother- 
hood between  Judah  and  Israel"  of  11"  is  a  bond  of  the  restored 
community. 

The  passages  in  which  mention  is  made  of  idols  and  false  proph- 
ets, also,  are  cited  as  proof  of  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  the  prophecies 
in  which  they  occur.  Those  who  thus  use  them,  assuming  that  the 
Hebrews  were  cured  of  their  tendency  to  disloyalty  to  Yahweh  by 
the  Exile,  claim  that  10'  reflects  the  same  state  of  things  as  Hosea's 
prophecies,  and  13^  ^-  that  of  the  time  of  Jeremiah. 

There  are  several  things  to  be  said  in  reply.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  incor- 
rect to  allege  that  the  Hebrews  were  free  from  idolatry  after  the  Restoration, 
or  secure  from  the  mischievous  teaching  of  unauthorised  prophets.  The  hos- 
tility of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to  marriages  with  foreign  women  and  the  meas- 
ures they  took  to  prevent  or  undo  them  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing, 
not  only  that  these  marriages  exposed  the  husbands  to  temptation  (Ne. 
IS''^  *)i  but  that  they  sometimes  resulted  in  apostasy  from  Yahweh.  As  to 
false  prophets,  Nehemiah  testifies  that  one  of  them,  in  the  service  of  his  ene- 
mies, attempted  to  turn  him  from  his  great  work.  See  Ne.  6'"  s-;  also  v.  ', 
where  Sanballat  accuses  Nehemiah  of  having  some  in  his  employ.  If,  there- 
fore, 10^,  of  which  only  the  first  two  clauses  and  the  last  two  are  original,  had 
reference  to  the  time  of  the  author,  the  mention  therein  of  teraphim  and  di- 
viners would  not  determine  his  date.  It  is  clear,  however,  from  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse  that  the  writer  is  thinking  of  the  past,  and  that  between  him 
and  the  period  to  which  these  things  belong  a  dynasty  has  been  overthrown 
and  a  people  scattered.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  identify  the  dynasty  or  the  peo- 
ple. At  first  sight  v.  ^  seems  to  furnish  a  key  to  the  difficulty,  but  since  the 
phrase  "the  house  of  Judah"  is  undoubtedly  a  gloss,  it  settles  nothing. 
From  V.  ^,  however,  it  appears  that  the  flock  of  Yahweh  includes  both 
Ephraim  and  Judah,  and  that  therefore  the  author  of  v.  '  in  its  original  form 
must  have  written  after  both  of  these  kingdoms  had  been  overthrown.  Cf. 
Ho.  35,  a  gloss  of  the  same  period. 

*  In  9'  Israel  evidently  includes  Judah,  while  in  12'  it  seems  to  have  practically  the  same 
meaning, 
t  In  10'  "  the  house  of  Judah  "  is  a  gloss. 


248  ZECHARIAH 

Some  of  those  who  refer  chs.  9-1 1  to  the  eighth  century  B.C. 
find  in  11*  a  confirmation  of  their  opinion,  claiming  that  the  three 
shepherds  of  that  passage  are  three  kings  who  came  to  the  throne 
of  Israel  during  the  troubled  period  that  succeeded  the  death  of 
Jeroboam  II.  If  they  refer  chs.  12-14  to  the  same  period,  12"  may 
be  cited  against  them;  for,  as  will  be  shown,  the  most  natural  in- 
terpretation of  that  passage  is  that  which  makes  it  an  allusion  to  the 
universal  grief  caused  by  the  untimely  death  of  the  good  king 
Josiah  at  the  battle  of  Megiddo.  In  either  case  it  is  a  valid  ob- 
jection that  no  one  has  ever  yet  been  able  to  name  three  kings  of 
Israel  "destroyed,"  as  the  text  requires  them  to  have  been,  within 
the  space  of  a  single  month.  Finally,  it  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count that,  as  will  be  shown,  the  first  clause  of  11^  is  a  gloss  and 
therefore  may  not  represent  the  stand-point  of  the  original  author. 

A  reference  to  the  earthquake  in  the  reign  of  Uzziah,  such  as  is 
found  in  14^,  might,  of  course,  have  been  made  at  any  time  after 
the  death  of  this  king,  but,  since  no  one  thinks  of  separating  ch. 
12  from  14,  it  is  plain  that  this  one  cannot  be  earlier  than  that  to 
the  death  of  Josiah  in  12".  In  point  of  fact,  it  is  later,  being,  like 
the  reference  to  the  three  shepherds  in  11^,  an  interpolation. 

Those  who  adopt  a  pre-exilic  date  or  dates  for  chs.  9-14  generally 
base  their  opinion  on  the  historical  backgroimd  as  they  mistakenly 
conceive  it.  Griitzmacher,  however,  dwells  at  some  length  on  the 
ideas  most  prominent  in  this  part  of  the  book  of  Zechariah,  claim- 
ing that  they,  too,  support  this  position. 

Thus,  he  says  (34)  that  "the  representation  of  the  Messiah  contained  in 
Zc.  9'  "•  fits  only  the  period  before  the  Exile,  and  is  inexplicable  if  assigned  to 
a  postexilic  date."  With  reference  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  he  says 
(36),  "The  views  expressed  in  ch.  14  do  not  suggest  a  postexilic  author,  but 
find  their  natural  explanation  in  the  assumption  that  this  prophecy  originated 
before  the  Exile."  Both  of  these  points  were  anticipated  in  the  discussion 
of  9'-"'  and  the  places  there  enumerated.  It  is  only  necessary  in  this  connec- 
tion to  call  attention  to  the  irrelevancy  of  Griitzmacher's  arguments  in  sup- 
port of  them.  He  says  (33)  that  the  idea  of  the  Messiah  found  in  93"  (more 
correctly,  9'  '•)  "witnesses  against  the  postexilic  origin  of  Zc.  9-14.  because 
we  nowhere  find  a  view  similar  to  that  here  expressed,  except  in  Is.  9'/^"- 
and  11'  ff-,  and  Mi.  5'  "•  and  2"."  The  assumption  that  the  Messiah  of  9'  '• 
is  the  same  as,  or  similar  to,  the  one  in  the  passages  cited  from  Isaiah  and 
Micah  is,  as  has  already  been  shown,  mistaken.  Hence,  the  conclusion 
based  on  it  is  without  foundation. 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV         249 

The  contention  that  the  attitude  of  the  author  of  chs.  12-14 
toward  the  Gentiles  favours  the  opinion  that  he  wrote  before  the 
Exile  is  equally  baseless.  It  is  not  enough  to  show,  as  Griitzmacher 
undertakes  to  do,  that  the  idea  of  the  participation  of  the  heathen 
in  the  ideal  kingdom  of  the  future  is  found  in  Jeremiah  and  Second 
Isaiah.  The  question  is,  whether  it  is  found  there  in  the  same,  or 
nearly  the  same,  stage  of  development  as  in  the  last  chapters  of 
Zechariah.  The  fact  that  in  9^,  which  Griitzmacher  overlooks, 
the  stand-point  of  the  author  is  more  advanced  than  that  of  any 
known  pre-exilic  or  exihc  writer  shows  that  even  this  passage  is  of 
postexilic  origin.  If,  therefore,  as  Griitzmacher  maintains,  chs. 
12-14  are  later  than  9-1 1,  how  can  chs.  12-14  have  been  written 
in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  ? 

It  remains  to  consider  the  relation  of  the  author,  or  authors,  of 
chs.  9-14  to  the  other  prophets. 

Those  who  refer  these  chapters  to  the  period  before  the  Exile,  not  being 
agreed  on  a  precise  date  or  dates,  naturally  differ  also  on  this  question. 
Thus,  V.  Ortenberg  (71),  who  thinks  that  91-'"  antedates  Amos,  cannot  but 
regard  Am.  i'  ff-  as  an  imitation  of  that  passage.  Griitzmacher,  on  the  other 
hand,  says  (25),  "It  is  very  probable  that  the  author  of  Zc.  gff.  had  the  proph- 
ecies of  Amos  before  him  and  used  them."  The  latter  is  no  doubt  correct, 
but  he  does  not  tell  the  whole  story,  for  the  influence  of  Amos  does  not  ac- 
count for  all  the  familiar  features  of  q'-'".  There  is  the  term  "hope"  or  "ex- 
pectation," in  the  sense  of  an  object  of  confidence  or  reliance,  in  v.  ^,  a  term 
used  elsewhere  only  in  Is.  20*.  More  striking  still  is  the  parallelism  between 
w.  2  «  and  Ez.  28^  '■  ^,  where  the  wisdom  and  wealth  of  Tyre  are  described 
and  its  fate  decreed.  Finally,  as  has  twice  already  been  noted,  the  picture 
of  the  Messiah  in  v.  '  is  a  composite  one,  as  if  the  spirit  of  the  Servant  of 
Yahweh  were  stamped  on  the  features  of  Isaiah's  Ideal  King.  Cf.  Is.  9^/'  '• 
494  50'  ff-.  Now,  in  the  first  of  these  three  cases,  if  it  were  the  only  one,  the  di- 
rection of  the  dependence  would  be  difficult  to  determine;  but  in  the  last  two  it 
seems  clear  that  the  author  of  Zc.  g'-'"  is  the  debtor,  it  being  more  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  in  vv. '  '•  he  borrowed  the  substance  of  his  brief  oracle  from 
Ezekiel  than  that  Ezekiel  expanded  those  two  verses  into  a  chapter,  and  that 
in  w.  5  '  he  combined  two  familiar  ideals  than  that  the  Great  Unknown  of 
the  Exile  dissected  his  composite  character  for  the  materials  from  which  the 
Servant  of  Yahweh  was  developed.  The  inference  is  obvious.  If  the  author 
of  9'"'",  which  is  generally  recognised  as  the  oldest  section  of  the  second  part 
of  2^chariah,  borrowed  from  Ezekiel  and  the  Second  Isaiah,  neither  he  nor 
the  author  of  any  subsequent  section  can  have  written  before  the  Exile. 

Two  points  have  now  been  established:  first,  that  chs.  9-14  were 
not  written  by  Zechariah,  and  second,  that  they  were  not  written 


250  ZECHARIAH 

before  or  during  the  Exile.  They  must,  therefore,  have  origi- 
nated after  the  Exile.  It  remains  to  determine  to  what  part  or 
parts  of  the  latter  period  they  belong. 

The  first  question  naturally  is  whether  they  may  not  have  come 
from  one  or  more  of  Zechariah's  contemporaries.  This  is  not 
probable.  One  reason  for  doubting  it  is  the  fact  that  they  are  at- 
tached to  the  genuine  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  the  example  of  the 
book  of  Isaiah  strongly  favouring  the  presumption  that  such  addi- 
tions are  later,  and  usually  considerably  later,  than  the  original 
work.  See  also  Amos  and  Jeremiah.  A  second  reason  is  found 
in  the  fact  that  when  Zechariah  first  began  to  prophesy  the  hopes 
of  the  Jews  were  centred  on  the  actual  governor,  Zerubbabel,  and 
after  his  removal  they  seem  for  a  time  to  have  abandoned  their 
Messianic  expectations. 

The  first  to  propose  to  assign  chs.  9-14  to  a  date  or  dates  later 
than  that  of  Zechariah  was  not,  as  Robinson  (11)  tells  his  readers, 
Grotius,  who  in  his  commentary  repeatedly  attributes  them  to 
Zechariah,*  but  Corrodi,  who,  in  1792,!  as  v.  Ortenberg  puts  it, 
"took  refuge  in  the  desperate  assumption  that  ch.  9  was  written 
in  the  time  of  Alexander,  ch.  14  in  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epij)h- 
anes."  A  similar  view  was  finally  adopted  by  Eichhom  in 
1824,^  and  later  by  others,  the  most  important  being  Vatke,§ 
Geiger**  and  Bottcher.ft  For  some  years  after  the  publication 
of  Bottcher's  work  the  view  held  by  the  above-mentioned  scholars 
found  no  new  defenders,  but  in  188 1  StadeJI  undertook  an  exhaus- 
tive study  of  the  subject,  reaching  the  conclusion  that  chs.  9-14 
are  the  work  of  one  author,  who  wrote  "during  the  second  half 
of  the  period  of  the  wars  of  the  Diadochi,"  or  between  306  and 
278  B.C.  The  influence  of  Stade  soon  began  to  show  itself.  In 
the  first  place  he  kindled  a  fresh  interest  and  discussion  concerning 
his  Deutero-Zechariah,  and  secondly,  he  compelled  a  new  align- 
ment among  those  who  have  since  written  on  the  subject.     Most 

♦  Thus,  on  9'-,  he  adds  to  the  statement  "I  declare"  "by  Zechariah,"  and  on  ii',  to  "my 
God"  '  J.  e.,  Zechariah's,"  etc.  He  insists,  however,  that  o'  is  a  prediction  of  the  invasion  of 
Palestine  by  Alexander  the  Great,  and  that  other  passages  have  reference  to  much  later  events 

t  Versuch  einer  Belfttchtung  der  Geschkhle  des  jud.  u.  chrisll.  Bihelkanons,  i,  107. 

X  EM.*,  iv,  427  fj.,  444  fJ-  §  Biblische  Theologir,  1834,  t,  5S3. 

*♦  Urschrijl  u.  Ueberselzung,  1857,  ss /•.  73/.         ii  AfhreiiJfsf,  i8()j-64,  ii,  215/. 

n  ZAW.,  1881,  ifi.;  1882,  151  iff..  275^. 


THE   AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV         251 

of  them  agree  in  referring  the  chapters  in  question  to  a  period  after 
Zechariah.  Even  Kuenen,*  who  clings  to  the  pre-exilic  origin  of 
"fragments"  in  9-1 1  and  13^"^,  admits  that  these  remains  of  the 
eighth  century  B.C.  "have  been  arranged  and  enriched  with  addi- 
tions from  his  own  hand  by  a  post-exilic  redactor."  See  also 
Staerkf  and  Eckardt.J  The  following  agree  with  Stade  in  main- 
taining the  unity  as  well  as  the  post-Zecharian  date  of  chs.  9-14: 
Wildeboer,§  Wellhausen,**  Marti,  Kuiper,tt  and  Cornill.Jt  These 
find  in  them  traces  of  plural  authorship  during  the  same  period; 
Driver, §§  Nowack  and  Rubinkam.***  Of  recent  writers  who  have 
resisted  this  general  drift  the  most  important  are  Griitzmacher, 
who,  as  has  been  explained,  contends  for  a  dual  authorship  before 
the  ExUe,  and  Robinsonfff  and  van  Hoonacker,  who  adhere  to  the 
traditional  opinion  that  the  whole  of  the  book  was  written  by  the 
prophet  whose  name  it  bears. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  variations  from  the  conclusions 
of  Stade  represented  by  the  authors  cited  as  agreeing  with  him  in 
assigning  chs.  9-14  to  a  period  later  than  Zechariah.  A  better 
method  will  be  to  treat  the  question  of  date  and  authorship  pos- 
itively in  the  light  of  the  discussion  that  has  been  aroused,  but  on 
the  basis  of  the  data  which  the  chapters  themselves  supply.  In 
so  doing  it  is  important,  if  possible,  first  to  fix  the  date  of  9*'^". 
This  is  a  distinct  prophecy,  as  is  shown  (i)  by  its  poetical  form,  a 
succession  of  twenty-four  three-toned  lines  divided  into  four  double 
tristichs.  The  tristich  gives  place  to  the  tetrastich  in  v.  ",  where 
(2)  the  language  also  indicates  the  commencement  of  a  new  proph- 
ecy. This  second  point  may  have  further  significance.  It  may 
mean  that  v.  "  not  only  begins  a  new  section,  but  introduces  a  new 
author,  in  other  words,  that  the  author  of  9"  ^-  has  here  preserved 
an  earlier  utterance  of  another  prophet  and  made  it  a  sort  of  text 
for  his  own  predictions.  This  suggestion  is  favoured  by  the  fact 
that  some  of  the  features  of  vv.  ^"^"'  are  entirely  ignored  in  the 

*  Onderzoeh,  ii,  411.  t  Unlersuchungen,  72,  100.  J  ZAW.,  1893,  102,  109. 

§  Lelterkunde  des  Ouden  Verhonds,  1896,  417. 

**  Die  kleinen  PropheUn,  1892;  ed.  3,  1898. 

tt  Zacharia  ix-xiv,  1894,  163. 

It  Einl->,  i905.t  §§  Inlrod?,  348  ij. 

***  The  Second  Part  oj  the  Book  oj  Zechariah,  1892,  83  /. 

ttt  The  Prop}i€cies  oj  Zechariah,  1896. 


252  ZECHARIAH 

following  context,  and,  indeed,  throughout  the  remainder  of  the 
book;  for  example,  the  coming  king  and  the  salvation  of  the  hea- 
then. The  possibility  that  these  verses  form  an  independent  proph- 
ecy frees  one  from  the  necessity  of  seeking  a  date  for  them,  as  Stade 
must,  betw^een  306  and  278  b.c,  and  permits  one  to  reopen  the 
whole  subject,  inquiring  first,  not  what  historical  event  corre- 
sponds to  this  prediction,  but  what  circumstances  would  natiu-ally 
furnish  an  occasion  for  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  oppression 
would  create  a  desire  for  deliverance,  but  the  oppressed  would 
hardly  dare  comfort  one  another  with  promises  of  relief,  unless  there 
was  a  possible  deliverer  in  sight.  If,  however,  there  can  be  found 
a  time  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  after  the  Restoration  when  these 
conditions  were  fulfilled,  the  fact  that  they  were  then  fulfilled  will 
speak  strongly  for  that  time  as  the  date  of  this  prophecy.  Now,  a 
serious  objection  to  the  dates,  301,  295  and  280,  to  which  Stade 
restricts  himself  is  that,  although  in  each  case  there  was  a  movement 
against  Palestine  from  the  north  by  Seleucus  I,  or  Antiochus  I  his 
son,  in  neither  case  was  the  movement  formidable  or  the  Jews  in  a 
condition  to  welcome  it.  They  always  preferred  the  sovereignty 
of  Egypt  to  that  of  Syria  until,  after  a  century,  the  Ptolemies  for- 
got the  wisdom  and  tolerance  that  had  previously  characterised 
the  d)masty*  and  lent  themselves  to  schemes  for  plundering  their 
dependent  neighbours.  It  is  more  probable  that  such  a  prophecy 
as  this  would  be  written  before  or  after,  than  during,  the  period  in 
question;  for  before  it,  when,  in  333  B.C.,  Alexander,  having  de- 
feated Darius  III  at  Issus,  moved  southward,  and  after  it,  when, 
in  220,  Antiochus  III  returned  from  the  East  flushed  with  victory 
and  resumed  his  attempt  to  get  possession  of  Palestine,  the  Jews 
were  ready  for  a  change  and  really  had  a  prospect  of  deliverance,  f 
The  former  of  these  dates  seems  favoured  by  the  description  of  Tyre 
(v. '),  from  which  one  would  infer  that,  when  it  was  written,  the 
city  had  never  been  taken,  as  it  had  not  been  when  Alexander  at- 

♦  MahafTy  explains  this  attitude  as  the  result  of  (i)  the  comparative  humanity  of  the  Egyp- 
tians when  they  occupied  Palestine,  and  (2)  the  policy  of  the  Ptolemies  in  accordance  with 
which  they  planted  Jewish  colonies  in  Egypt  instead  of  Egyptian  colonics  in  Palestine.  Egypt 
under  tlie  Plokmies,  88  if. 

t  f)f  the  latter  Polybius  (xv,  37)  says:  "King  Antiochus,  at  the  heginning  of  his  reign,  was 
thought  to  be  a  man  of  great  enterprise  and  courage  and  great  \-igour." 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV         253 

tacked  it.  There  is  another  indication  pointing  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. It  is  found  in  v.  ^.  This  verse,  as  will  be  shown,  is  an  in- 
terpolation, and,  as  such,  has  not  the  same  value  as  it  would  have 
if  it  were  a  part  of  the  original  text;  but  it  has  a  value  as  an  indica- 
tion how  the  earliest  Jewish  readers  understood  the  prophecy.  The 
one  who  inserted  it  was  doubtless  familiar  with  the  story  that,  when 
Alexander  was  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  he  not  only  spared  the  Jews, 
but  treated  them  with  great  consideration,  and  he  naively  added 
what  seemed  to  him  a  neglected  detail  to  bring  prophecy  and  ful- 
filment into  more  perfect  harmony. 

Josephus  says  (Anl.,  x,  8,  4)  that  Alexander,  after  taking  Gaza,  made  a  p[  I .. 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  where,  having  been  received  by  a  great  procession,  "he 
offered  sacrifices  to  God  according  to  the  high  priest's  direction''  and  be- 
stowed upon  the  Jews  certain  important  privileges,  at  the  same  time  promis-  i  • 
ing  any  who  would  enlist  in  his  army  that  "they  should  continue  in  the  laws  \  I 
of  their  fathers  and  live  according  to  them";  and  there  is  nothing  incredible  'M 
in  the  story  in  this  its  unembeUished  version.  rj 

These  considerations  make  it  probable  that  Kuiper  is  correct 
in  concluding  that  9^"^"  in  its  original  form  was  written  in  333  B.C., 
just  after  the  battle  of  Issus.* 

The  prophecy  in  9^'^",  as  preserved,  is  a  part  of  a  larger  whole, 
namely,  9-1 1  and  13^'^,  which  is  bound  together  by  a  common  rec- 
ognition of  Ephraim  as  co-heir  with  Judah  to  the  good  things  of 
the  future.  The  other  two  parts,  however,  as  can  be  shown,  be- 
long to  a  later  stage  in  the  Greek  period.  The  passage  on  which 
an  argument  for  such  a  date  would  naturally  be  based  is  9^^,  where 
the  enemies  over  whom  the  sons  of  Sion  are  promised  victory  are 
called  "  sons  of  Greece."  If  this  passage  could  be  taken  at  its  face 
value,  the  case  would  be  a  clear  one,  for  evidently  the  author,  who- 
ever he  was,  could  not  refer  to  the  Greeks  until  they  came  within 
the  Jewish  horizon,  and  would  not  refer  to  them  as  enemies  until 
his  people  had  suffered  at  their  hands.  The  matter,  however,  is 
not  so  simple.    The  truth  is  that,  as  any  one  with  an  ear  for  rhythm, 

*  The  oppressor  to  whom  allusion  is  made  in  v.  ^  would  thus  be  Artaxerxes  III  (359-338 
B.C.),  who,  within  a  few  years,  on  the  occasion  of  a  revolt  in  which  the  Jews  were  implicated, 
had  invaded  and  devastated  the  country  and  carried  many  of  its  inhabitants  into  captivity 
to  Hyrcania. 


254  ZECHARIAH 

on  reading  the  passage  in  the  original,  will  perceive,  the  words  "  thy 
sons,  O  Greece"  are  another  gloss;  that,  therefore,  they  may  not 
represent  the  mind  of  the  original  author.  This  fact  makes  it 
necessary,  as  in  the  case  of  9^''",  to  examine  the  original  text  and 
determine,  if  possible,  at  what  date  in  the  Greek  })eriod  the  con- 
ditions described  or  implied  existed.  This  at  first  sight  seems  not 
very  difficult.  It  is  at  once  (9")  evident  that  many  of  Sion's  chil- 
dren are  captives  in  other  lands.  Later  (10")  it  appears  that  they 
are  not  all  in  the  far  East,  but  that  some  of  them  have  been  carried 
to  Egypt.  At  the  same  time  one  learns  that  their  case  is  not  hope- 
less, that  they  expect  to  be  restored  to  their  country,  and,  indeed, 
to  some  extent  by  their  own  efforts.  In  other  words,  one  sees  a 
national  spirit  asserting  itself.  From  11*  onward,  however,  there 
is  a  greatly  changed  tone.  Hope  is  not,  it  is  true,  entirely  quenched, 
but  it  is  a  "hope  deferred,"  and  there  is  mingled  with  it  a  bitter- 
ness, the  effect  of  positive  oppression,  of  which  there  is  no  trace 
in  9"-!!^.  These  conflicting  indications  cannot  be  reconciled. 
They  can  only  be  explained  by  supposing  that  11*  ^-  and  13^'®  were 
written  at  a  different  time,  or,  at  any  rate,  by  a  different  author, 
from  9"-!!^. 

This  inference  is  strengthened  on  a  closer  examination  of  the  first  two  of  these 
sections.  The  most  striking  peculiarities  in  their  diction  are  the  substitution 
of  prose  for  poetry  and  the  employment  of  the  first  person  as  if  in  imitation  of 
Zechariah.  There  is  another  reminder  of  that  prophet  in  the  expression 
(v.  *),  "Thus  said  Yahweh,"  the  original  of  which  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
"Thus  saith  Yahweh"  of  the  first  eight  chapters.  Note  also  that  in  ii'« 
"Israel"  takes  the  place  of  the  "Ephraim"  of  9''  and  10'  and  "the  house  of 
Joseph"  of  10*;  and  that  in  ii^  the  verb  "rescue"  C^xj,  Hiph.)  is  used  instead 
of  the  "save"  (y;^,  Hiph.)  of  9^  and  lo*,  while  in  11"  the  word  for  "glory"  is 
different  from  the  one  in  v.  ^  (iim  instead  of  miN).  Finally,  there  are  certain 
rare  words,  forms  and  meanings  that  confirm  the  impression  already  made: 
Nxo,  Hiph.,  surrender,  u^;  nna,  Pi.,  crush,  ii«;  0>j,  delight,  11';  Spo,  staff, 
ii'ff-;  Sna.  loathe,  ii«;  irir,  watch,  11";  V.  price,  11";  3X:,  Nl,  survive, 
11'*;  3Ty,  with  ^  ~  compaginis,  11";  'n^cj;  "\3J,  my  companion,  13'. 

The  evidence  seems  conclusive:  9"-!!^  and  ii^'^  with  13'"^ 
come  from  different  authors.  The  next  step  is  to  inquire  whether 
in  the  Greek  period  there  are  to  be  found  corresponding  conditions. 
The  history  of  this  period,  so  far  as  the  relations  of  Palestine  to  the 
neighbouring  coiuitries  is  concerned,  is  briefly  as  follows:  Alex- 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  255 

ander,  as  has  already  been  observed,  was  friendly  to  the  Jews. 
After  his  death  Seleucus  and  Ptolemy  vied  with  each  other  to 
secure  their  goodwill  and  allegiance.  In  the  struggle  between  the 
two  the  Jews  naturally  suffered  severely  from  both  parties,  but 
they  always  preferred  Egyptian  to  Syrian  supremacy.  The  reason 
is  obvious.  Josephus  says*  that,  although  Ptolemy  took  Jerusalem 
by  guile  and  carried  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  country  into 
captivity,  he  treated  them  so  well  that  "not  a  few  other  Jews  went 
into  Egypt  of  their  own  accord,  attracted  by  the  goodness  of  the 
soil  and  the  liberality  of  Ptolemy."  This  king  cannot,  however, 
have  given  them  all  "equal  privileges  as  citizens  with  the  Mace- 
donians," if  the  historian  is  correct  in  saying,  as  he  does  in  another 
place,t  that  many  of  them  did  not  receive  their  freedom  until  the 
reign  of  Ptolemy  II  (Philadelphus,  285-247  B.C.).  The  latter 
further  commended  himself  to  the  Jews  by  taking  an  interest  in 
their  Scriptures,  the  first  part  of  which,  the  Law  of  Moses,  is  said 
to  have  been  translated  into  Greek  under  his  patronage. 

The  earliest  extant  account  of  this  translation  is  found  in  the  famous 
pseudograph  called  The  Letter  of  Aristeas,  the  text  of  which  is  published  in  an 
Appendix  to  Swete's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Creek.  For  Jose- 
phus's  version  of  the  story,  see  Ant.,  xii,  2;  for  an  estimate  of  its  historical 
value,  Buhl,  Kanon  u.  Text  des  A.  T.,  11 1  ^. 

Ptolemy  III  (Euergetes,  247-222  B.C.)  at  first  seems  to  have 
followed  the  example  of  his  predecessors, J  but  he  finally  adopted 
or  permitted  a  different  policy.  At  any  rate,  in  his  reign  the  taxes 
paid  by  the  Jews,  which  had  not  hitherto  been  burdensome,  were 
greatly  increased  and  the  collection  of  them  put  into  the  hands  of 
an  unscrupulous  adventurer,  Joseph,  son  of  Tobias,  who  enjoyed 
the  profits  of  the  office  for  twenty-two  years.  Cf.  Josephus, 
Ant.,  xii,  4,  I  /• 

The  account  of  Joseph  given  by  Josephus  is  chronologically  contradictory. 
The  reigning  king  of  Egypt  is  first  identified  with  the  one  (Ptolemy  V)  to 
whom  Antiochus  III  gave  his  daughter  Cleopatra,  and  a  little  later  called 
Ptolemy  Euergetes  (III).  It  is  the  latter,  as  Wellhausen  (IJG.)  has  shown, 
who  was  ruling  at  the  time.  In  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  V  Palestine  was  an- 
nexed to  the  Syrian  empire,  and,  of  course,  paid  tribute  to  Antiochus  III. 

*  .4nt.,  xii,  2,  I.  t  Anl.,  xii,  2,  3.  J  Josephus,  Cont.  Apion,  ii,  5. 


2S6  ZECHARIAH 

Meanwhile  a  fourth  Ptolemy  (Philopator,  222-205  b.c.)  had 
come  to  the  throne  of  Egypt.  Polybius  says  of  this  king  that 
"he  would  attend  to  no  business,"  being  "absorbed  in  unworthy 
intrigues  and  senseless  and  continual  drunkenness."  The  Jews 
also  give  him  a  bad  character.  The  third  book  of  Maccabees  is 
entirely  devoted  to  an  account  of  him  and  his  relations  with  his 
Jewish  subjects.  It  says  that  after  the  battle  of  Raphia  (217  B.C.) 
he  went  to  Jerusalem,  entered  the  temple  and  attempted  to  invade 
the  Holy  of  Holies.  Being  providentially  prevented,  on  his  re- 
turn to  Egypt  he  imdertook  "to  inflict  a  disgrace  upon  the  Jewish 
nation."  He  therefore  ordered  "that  those  who  did  not  sacrifice 
[according  to  his  directions]  should  not  enter  their  temples;  that 
all  the  Jews  should  be  degraded  to  the  lowest  rank  and  to  the  con- 
dition of  slaves,"*  etc.;  and,  when  most  of  the  Jews  refused  to 
obey  his  mandate,  he  made  proclamation  that  they  should  "be 
conveyed,  with  insults  and  harsh  treatment,  secured  in  every  way 
by  iron  bands,  to  undergo  an  inevitable  and  ignominious  death."  f 
The  details  of  this  marvellous  story  are  evidently  in  large  measure 
fictitious,  but  its  origin  and  currency  among  the  Jews  cannot  be 
explained  except  on  the  supposition  "that  Philopator  earned  the 
hostility  of  that  people  and  that  they  looked  back  upon  his  reign 
as  one  of  oppression  and  injustice."  J 

The  above  sketch  does  scant  justice  even  to  Jewish  interests 
in  the  Greek  period.  It  is  sufficient,  however,  for  the  present  pur- 
pose. It  shows  that  the  Jews,  fostered  and  encouraged,  first  by 
Alexander,  and  then  by  the  Ptolemies,  finally,  under  Philadelphus, 
began  to  feel  their  importance  and  demand  larger  concessions. 
This  is  precisely  the  situation  to  give  rise  to  dreams  of  a  new 
Exodus  and  a  revival  of  the  glory  of  the  Jewish  race  like  those  of 
-V^-ii^.  It  also  explains  the  "liberality"  of  Philadelphus,  who 
never  attempted  by  force  anything  that  he  could  accomplish  by 
diplomacy.  His  successors,  as  has  been  shown,  adopted  a  diflferent 
policy,  thus  creating  a  situation  which  would  naturally  give  rise 
to  such  utterances  as  are  found  in  ii^'*'  and  13'"°. 

There  is  one  possible  objection  to  the  second  of  the  above  iden- 

*  3  Mac.  2"  »•.  t  3  Mac.  3» 

t  Mahaffy,  Egypt  under  ihe  Ptolemies,  270;  History  oj  Egypt,  iv,  145. 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV  257 

tifications.  It  is  found  in  the  oft-cited  statement  concerning  the 
three  shepherds  in  1 1^.  Not  that  this  can  refer  to  any  trio  of  kings 
or  pretendants  in  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  If  it  is 
by  the  same  hand  as  the  context,  it  is  still  without  doubt  later  than 
Zechariah.  If,  however,  as  seems  the  case,  it  is  a  gloss,  it  may  have 
been  suggested  by  Dn.  11-",  the  three  kings  being  Antiochus  the 
Great,  Seleucus  IV  and  the  usurper  Heliodorus.  For  details,  see 
the  comments.  The  question  would  then  be,  whether  the  glossa- 
tor was  correct,  in  other  words,  to  which  of  two  situations  11^'" 
and  13^"®  more  nearly  correspond,  the  one  above  outlined  or  the 
somewhat  later  one  (220  B.C.)  created  by  the  interference  of  Anti- 
ochus the  Great  and  his  success  in  finally  securing  possession  of 
Palestine.  The  prominence  of  "the  traders,"  apparently  tax- 
collectors,  favours  the  former  alternative. 

The  defenders  of  the  pre-exilic  origin  of  chs.  9-14,  as  has  been  explained, 
have  usually  felt  themselves  compelled  to  accept  the  theory  of  plural  author- 
ship. On  the  other  hand,  those  who  refer  them  to  the  postexilic  period,  be- 
ing relieved  from  any  such  necessity,  incline  with  Stade  to  attribute  the  whole, 
or  at  least  all  but  g'l",  to  a  single  author.  So  We.,  Marti,  Eckardt,  GASm., 
Cor.  and  others.  There  is  room,  however,  from  their  stand-point  for  a  differ- 
ent opinion.  It  is  true,  as  Stade  has  observed  (ZAW.,  1881,  86),  that  there 
is  a  correspondence  between  chs.  9-1 1,  with  13^-',  and  chs-  12-14,  without 
13'-',  but  it  is  a  correspondence  with  a  difference,  and  the  difference  is  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  latter  division  was  wTitten  by  an 
author  different  from  either  of  those  who  produced  the  former.  There  is 
not  so  much  difference  in  language,  because  all  three  belong  to  the  same 
school  and  draw  largely  on  the  same  resources,  especially  Ezekiel.  For  a 
list  of  common  words  and  expressions,  see  Eckardt,  ZAW.,  1893,  100/. 
There  are,  however,  some  peculiarities:  n'MH  mantle,  13^;  in  11^,  glory,  for 
which  12^  has  PNiiin;  p:,  protect,  with  -^i'i,  128  but  with  Sj?  915;  3^%  dwell, 
of  Jerusalem,  12^  i4"'-  ";  aSc'n^  0)3B'',  inluibiianl(s)  of  Jerusalem,  12'- 
7.  8.  10  1^1;  123^  as,  K)^  \c?- 1-  *,  not  in  chs.  12-14;  P^s,  Sion,  9'-  ",  not  in  chs. 
12-14;  nc.  gather,  12^  142-  ",  but  V^p,  lo^-  i". 

More  significant  is  the  difference  in  literary  form, — the  halting, 
uncertain  measure,  when  there  is  any  attempt  at  rhythm,  compared 
with  the  regularity  in  9"-ii^, — which  makes  the  hypothesis  that 
the  same  person  may  have  written  both  divisions  at  different  stages 
in  his  life  ridiculous. 

These  are  merely  formal  distinctions.  There  is  also  a  difference 
of  content.    In  the  first  place,  it  is  noticeable  that  in  chs.  12-14 


258  ZECHARIAH 

(without  13'"')  the  writer,  as  in  the  genuine  prophecies  of  Zecha- 
riah,  confines  his  attention  to  Judah,  the  northern  tribes,  never 
overlooked  in  chs.  9-1 1,  being  entirely  ignored.  Indeed,  as  if  he 
were  afraid  of  being  misunderstood,  he  gives  (14^")  the  dimensions 
of  the  Holy  Land  of  the  future  with  Jerusalem  as  its  centre.  The 
repeated  references  to  David  or  the  house  of  David,  too,  are  worthy 
of  notice.  Compare  the  silence  of  the  author  of  9"-!!^,  after  hav- 
ing reproduced  9^°  ^-j  with  reference  to  the  royal  family.  At  the 
same  time  pains  is  here  taken  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  claims 
of  the  house  of  Levi.  Nor  is  this  the  only  indication  of  the  sym- 
pathy of  the  writer  with  the  priests  and  their  interests.  His  last 
thought  is  of  the  temple  crowded  with  worshippers  of  all  nations. 
It  is  not  impossible  that  sacerdotal  jealousy  prompted  13'"^  Be 
that  as  it  may,  this  interesting  passage  can  hardly  be  by  the  same 
author  as  ii'*^-,  which  is  anything  but  hostile  to  the  prophetic 
order.  Finally,  the  last  division  of  chs.  9-14  is  distinguished,  not 
only  from  1-8,  but  from  9-1 1  and  13^'®  by  an  apocalyptic  tone  and 
teaching  the  characteristics  of  which  have  already  been  discussed. 
See  pp.  239/ 

It  is  clear  that,  if  the  relation  between  the  main  di\isions  of  chs. 
9-14  has  been  correctly  defined,  12-14  (exc  13^'^)  must  be  later 
than  9"-!!^  and  13^"^.  How  much  later  it  is  there  seems  to  be 
no  means  of  learning.  The  general  impression  one  gets  from  read- 
ing it,  and  especially  the  similarity  of  the  situation  implied  in 
14^  ^-  to  that  in  13^  ^^  indicates  that  the  interval  was  not  a  long 
one.  Indeed,  it  is  possible  that  these  prophecies  should  be  ex- 
plained as  the  diflfering  views  of  unlike  persons  on  the  same  situ- 
ation, namely,  that  in  the  interval  between  the  battle  of  Raphia 
(217  B.C.)  and  the  death  of  Ptolemy  IV  (204  b.c),  when  Anti- 
ochus  the  Great  was  waiting  for  an  opportimity  to  renew  his 
attempt  on  Palestine. 

The  following,  then,  is  the  result  of  the  discussion  of  the  date 
and  authorship  of  chs.  9-14.  The  introductory  verses  (9*"*")  are 
a  distinct  prophecy  written  soon  after  the  battle  of  Issus  (t,^^  e.g.). 
This  was  made  the  text  for  a  more  extended  utterance  (9"-ii^) 
which  dates  from  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  III  (247-222  b.c).  A  third 
writer,  soon  after  the  battle  of  Raphia  (217  B.C.),  supplemented  this 


THE    AUTHORSHIP    OF    CHAPTERS    IX-XIV         259 

combined  work  by  a  pessimistic  picture  (11^"'^  with  13'"')  of  the 
situation  as  he  saw  it.  About  the  same  time  a  fourth  with  apoca- 
lyptic tendencies  undertook  to  present  the  whole  subject  in  a  more 
optimistic  light,  the  result  being  12^-13®  and  14.  It  is  possible 
that  9^"^"  was  originally  an  appendix  to  chs.  1-8,  and  that  the  rest 
were  added  in  their  order.  Since,  however,  there  is  no  clear  ref- 
erence in  any  of  them  to  chs.  1-8,  it  seems  safer  to  suppose  that 
no  part  of  the  last  six  chapters  was  added  to  the  book  of  Zechariah 
until  they  had  all  been  written. 


COMMENTARY  ON  CHAPTERS  9-14 

OF  THE  BOOK  OF  ZECHARIAH. 

The  last  six  chapters  of  the  book  called  after  Zechariah  natu- 
rally fall  into  two  divisions,  separated  by  the  title  at  the  beginning 
of  ch.  12,  or  more  exactly,  as  has  already  been  explained,  consist- 
ing of  chs.  9-1 1,  with  the  addition  of  13''®  and  chs.  12-14  without 
the  verses  specified.    The  general  subject  of  the  first  division  is 

I.     The  revival  of  the  Hebrew  nation  (9^-11^'  i3^"^)- 

This  division  contains  three  sections,  the  contents  of  which  come 
from  as  many  authors,  writing  at  different  dates  and  representing 
more  or  less  divergent  lines  of  thought  and  expectation.  The  first 
deals  with 

a.      THE   NEW   KINGDOM  (9*""). 

This  section  must  be  viewed  from  two  stand-points.  Origi- 
nally, as  has  been  explained,  it  was  probably  a  separate  prophecy, 
written  soon  after  the  battle  of  Issus  by  some  one  who  saw  in  Alex- 
ander the  divinely  appointed  and  directed  instrument  for  the  de- 
liverance of  his  people  and  the  restoration  of  the  Hebrew  state. 
The  author  who  gave  it  its  present  setting  meant  that  it  should  be 
taken  differently,  viewed  as  a  picture,  not  of  the  time  of  Alexander, 
but  of  a  period  still  future  when  the  highest  hopes  of  his  people 
would  be  realised.  Two  thoughts  may  be  distinguished,  the  first 
being 

(i)  The  recovery  of  the  Promised  Land  (9^'*). — When  the  Hebrews 
invaded  Palestine  they  were  not  able  to  obtain  possession  of  the 
whole  country.  Nor  did  their  kings,  the  greatest  of  them,  succeed 
in  bringing  it  entirely  under  their  dominion.  They  believed,  how- 
ever, that  the  conquest  would  one  day  be  completed.     This  proph- 

260 


»-«  26l 


9 

ecy  is  a  picture  of  the  final  occupation  of  those  parts  of  the  country 
that  the  Hebrews  had  not  been  able  to  subjugate.  The  general 
movement  is  from  north  to  south,  that  is,  from  "the  River"  Eu- 
phrates toward  "the  ends  of  the  earth"  (v.  ") ;  but  the  writer  does 
not  follow  the  precise  order  in  which  the  points  mentioned  would 
naturally  be  reached  by  an  invader  traversing  the  country  in  that 
direction.  Thus,  Damascus  precedes  Hamath,  and  the  cities  of 
Philistia  follow  one  another  apparently  without  reference  to  their 
relative  location.  Compare  Isaiah's  spirited  sketch  of  the  advance 
of  the  Assyrians  in  lo"  ^■.  The  paragraph  closes  with  a  promise 
not  in  the  original  prophecy,  that  Yahweh  will  protect  his  people 
in  the  enjoyment  of  their  increased  possessions. 

1.  The  prophecy  begins  with  a  word,  KITO,  literally  meaning 
something  uplifted,  and  hence,  not  only  burden  (Ex.  23^),  but,  since 
the  Hebrews  "uplifted"  their  voices  in  speaking,  utterance,  oracle. 
Cf.  2  K.  9^.*  Jeremiah,  in  23^,  taking  advantage  of  this  ambi- 
guity, produced  one  of  the  best  examples  of  paronomasia  in  the  Old 
Testament. t  Here  it  must  be  rendered  oracle  and,  since  it  is  not 
used  absolutely,  connected  with  the  following  phrase,  thus  produc- 
ing at  the  same  time  a  title.  An  oracle  of  the  word  of  Yahweh,  and 
the  first  line  of  the  first  tristich.  This  title  being  required  for  the 
completion  of  the  tristich,  must  always  have  been  connected  with 
the  following  context,  but  it  originally  covered  only  vv.  ^'^''.  The 
editor  or  compiler  who  inserted  the  corresponding  title  in  12*  seems 
to  have  intended  that  this  one  should  cover  the  intervening  chap- 
ters. Cf.  Mai.  i^  If  the  title  constitutes  a  line,  the  words  in  the 
land  of  Hadrak  must  be  another,  or  the  remains  of  one.  The  lat- 
ter is  the  more  defensible  alternative,  since,  although  the  author 
evidently  intended  that  this  clause  and  the  one  following  should 
correspond,  they  are  now  but  imperfectly  parallel.  The  need  of 
another  word  is  apparent,  but  it  is  not  so  clear  what  should  be  sup- 


*  Wrongly  rendered  in  the  English  version,  "the  Lord  laid  this  burden  upon  him,"  the 
correct  translation  being,  "Yahweh  uttered  this  oracle  against  him." 

t  The  figure  is  greatly  obscured  by  a  curious  error  in  M,  the  words  in  one  place  having  been 
wrongly  divided  by  a  careless  copyist.  For  Nt'O  nc  PK,  "What  burden?"  read  nU'DH  DPN 
and  translate  the  whole  verse,  "  When  this  people,  or  a  prophet,  or  a  priest  asketh,  saying^ 
What  is  the  ma'ssa'  {oracle)  of  Yahweh  ?  thou  shalt  say  to  them,  Ye  are  the  ma's'sa'  {burden) 
and  I  will  cast  you  oS." 


262  ZECHARIAH 

plied.  The  answer  to  this  question  depends  on  the  interpretation 
given  to  the  next  clause,  whether  it  is  Yahweh  or  his  word  whose 
resting-place  is  to  be  in  Damascus.  Stade  and  others  adopt  the 
former  view  and,  in  accordance  with  it,  supply  Yahweh,  but  this 
can  hardly  have  been  the  thought  of  the  prophet.  To  say  that 
Yahweh  was  about  to  seek  a  place  of  rest  in  Syria  would  denote 
peculiar  favour,  whereas,  as  the  next  verses  abundantly  show,  the 
message  of  the  prophet  as  a  whole  menaces  violence  and  destruc- 
tion for  the  time  being  to  the  surrounding  peoples.  It  must  there- 
fore be  the  word  of  Yahweh  that  is  the  subject  in  both  of  these 
clauses,  his  decree,  or,  still  more  precisely,  the  evil  decreed.  The 
missing  word  was  perhaps  the  one  used  in  a  precisely  similar  case 
by  Isaiah  in  9'"^,  the  whole  clause  reading,  ifi  the  land  of  Hadrak 
shall  it  fall.  The  land  of  Hadrak  is  not  elsewhere  mentioned 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  its  rela- 
tive location,  for  from  the  next  verse  it  appears  that  it  bordered 
upon  Hamath.  This  being  the  case,  Schrader  is  probably  correct 
in  identifying  it  with  Hattarik(k)a,  a  city  and  country  several  times 
mentioned  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  which  Delitzsch,  on  the 
basis  of  these  references,  locates  "a.  little  north  of  Lebanon."* 
The  country  so  called  must  have  been  one  of  considerable  extent 
and  importance;  otherwise  the  Assyrians  would  not  have  had  to 
make  three  expeditions  against  it  between  772  and  755  B.C.  to 
subdue  it  and  hold  it  in  subjection. f  Hence  it  is  not  strange  to 
find  it  here  representing  the  northern  part  of  the  Promised  Land. 
In  this  land  of  Hadrak  the  word  of  Yahweh  will  begin  its  destruc- 
tive work,  but  Damascus  also  shall  be  its  resting-place,  one  of  the 
places  on  which  the  divine  displeasure  will  fall.  This  interpreta- 
tion harmonises  not  only  with  the  context,  but  with  the  constant 
attitude  of  the  Hebrews  toward  the  kingdom  of  Syria,  which  was 
always  one  of  hostility.  Cf.  Am.  i^  Is.  17^  ^^  etc.  No  Jew  of  the 
time  of  the  author  would  have  entertained  the  idea  that  Yahweh 
would  find  a  resting-place  at  Damascus. 

♦  Cf.  KAT.\  482  ff.:  Dl.Par.,  "s  f  ;  also  KA  T.',  map.  We.  identifies  it  with  the  repon  of 
.\ntioch  the  capital  of  the  Syrian  empire.  Pognon  fmds  the  city  of  Hadrak  mentioned  under 
the  .\ram.  name  Hazrak  in  a  proclamation  by  one  Zakir,  a  king  of  Hamath.    RB.,   1907, 

sssff. 

t  C/.  KA  T.\  48j  fj. 


9"'  263 

It  seems  strange  that  any  of  the  later  Jews  should  have  adopted  this  opin- 
ion; yet  it  is  found  in  ®  and  some  later  authorities.  A  quotation  from  one  of 
these  shows  how  they  contrived  to  defend  it.  A  rabbi  says:  "I  take  heaven 
and  earth  to  witness  that  I  am  from  Damascus,  and  that  there  is  there  a  place 
called  Hadrak.  But  how  do  I  Justify  the  words,  and  Damascus  shall  be  his 
resting- place?  Jerusalem  will  one  day  extend  to  Damascus;  for  it  says,  and 
Damascus  shall  be  his  resting-place,  and  his  resting-place,  according  to  the 
Scripture,  this  is  my  rest  forever,  is  none  other  than  Jerusalem."  R.  Jose  in 
Yalkiit  Shimeoni,  i,  fol.  258. 

The  line  just  quoted  closes  the  first  tristich.  The  next  clause, 
in  its  original  form,  carries  the  same  idea  forward  to  a  second  and 
connected  one;  for  this  clause  should  read,  not,  as  in  the  Masso- 
retic  text,  toward  Yahweh  is  the  eye  of  man,  which  is  meaningless 
in  this  connection,  but,  as  Klostermann  has  acutely  conjectured, 
to  Yahweh  are  the  cities  of  Aram,  that  is,  Syria.  These  cities  are 
his  in  the  sense  that  they  lie  within  the  Kmits  of  the  territory  that 
he  has  promised  to  his  people.  Cf.  v.  •'*'  Gn.  15^^,  etc.  The  claim 
of  Yahweh  to  Damascus  and  the  rest  of  the  cities  of  Syria  was 
expressly  set  forth  because  it  had  been,  and  still  was,  contested. 
There  was  no  such  reason  for  asserting  his  right  to  the  territory 
actually  occupied  by  the  Hebrews,  but  some  one,  mistaking  the 
original  author's  purpose,  for  the  sake  of  completeness  and  in  defi- 
ance of  metrical  considerations,  has  added  and,  or,  more  freely  ren- 
dered, as  well  as,  all  the  tribes  of  Israel. 

2.  The  continuation,  therefore,  of  the  original  thought  is  found 
in  the  introduction  of  Hamath.  The  Hebrews  did  not  always  lay 
claim  to  this  region.  They  were  never  able  to  extend  their  con- 
quests beyond  Dan.  See  2  S.  24^^-  and  the  expression  "from  Dan 
to  Beersheba"  (Ju.  20^  i  S.  3^'*,  etc.).  Ezekiel  does  not  promise 
them  anything  beyond  these  limits,  for,  in  his  outline  of  the  boun- 
daries of  the  new  state  (47^^^),  as  in  Nu.  13^*  (P),  "the  entrance 
to  Hamath  "  seems  to  be  the  southern  end  of  the  great  valley  of 
Lebanon.  There  is,  however,  a  series  of  Deuteronomic  passages 
in  which  the  writer  (or  writers)  carries  the  northern  boundary  of 
his  country  to  the  Euphrates.*  This  is  evidently  the  thought  of 
the  words  now  imder  consideration,  whose  author  reckoned  Ha- 

*  These  passages  are  Gn.  151*  Ex.  23"  Dt.  i'  ii^*  Jos.  i''  13^  Ju.  3'.  In  the  last  two  "the 
entrance  to  Hamath"  is  clearly  located  at  the  northern  end  of  the  valley  of  Lebanon.  Cf, 
Moore,  Judges,  80. 


264  ZECHARIAH 

math  also  a  part  of  the  Promised  Land.  The  earliest  mention  of 
Hamath  in  the  Old  Testament  is  that  in  Am.  6^,  where  it  is  repre- 
sented as  a  thriving  kingdom;  but  it  appears  in  an  Assyrian  in- 
scription as  an  ally  of  Israel  and  Damascus  in  854  B.C.*  From  that 
time  onward,  with  intervals  of  revolt,  it  paid  tribute  to  the  king  of 
Assyria  until,  in  720  B.C.,  Sargon  finally  crushed  and  repeopled  it.f 
The  city  of  the  same  name,  however,  being  very  advantageously 
situated  on  the  Orontes,  could  not  be  lastingly  destroyed.  In  the 
Syrian  period  it  had  become  of  sufficient  importance  to  induce 
Antiochus  IV  to  rename  it,  after  himself,  Epiphania.  It  still  sur- 
vives, under  the  name  Hama,  in  spite  of  its  unhealthy  location, 
an  important  commercial  centre  with  50,000  inhabitants.  There 
were  other  cities  in  northern  Syria,  but  the  three  whose  names  are 
given  were  deemed  sufficient  to  represent  that  region.  Phcenicia 
is  represented  by  two.  In  the  Massoretic  text  they  both  appear 
in  this  verse,  and,  indeed,  in  the  same  line.  The  name  of  Tyre, 
however,  is  superfluous,  and,  as  will  appear  from  grammatical 
and  metrical  considerations,  an  interpolation.  Its  appearance 
here  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  in  Ez.  28^  ^-  it  is  Tyre,  and  not 
Sidon,  that  is  famed  for  its  wisdom.  The  author  of  the  gloss,  re- 
membering this,  doubtless  thought  that  the  former  name  should 
be  substituted  for  the  latter,  or  the  two  cities  should  divide  the 
contested  honour.  The  original  reading  was  and  Sidon,  although 
it  is  very  wise.  The  wisdom  here  attributed  to  the  mother  of 
Phoenician  cities  was  proverbial.  The  author  might  have  quoted 
the  words  addressed  to  the  younger  city  by  Ezekiel:  "Thou  art 
wiser  than  Daniel;  there  is  no  secret  that  is  hid  from  thee.  By  thy 
wisdom  and  thy  understanding  thou  hast  won  thyself  wealth,  and 
brought  gold  and  silver  into  thy  coffers."  It  is  the  practical 
shrewdness  of  the  successful  trader,  which  the  Phoenicians  also 
applied  in  diplomacy.  By  its  aid  they  were  generally  able  to  bribe 
their  enemies,  or  use  them  one  against  another,  and  thus  escape 
dangerous  complications.  Sometimes,  however,  their  wisdom 
failed  them.  Thus,  for  example,  when,  in  351  B.C.,  after  having 
worn  the  Persian  yoke  for  a  hundred  and  fifty  years,  the  Sidonians, 

*  Rogers,  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  ii,  75  fl.\  KAT.'^,  1Q3  iJ.\  KB.,  i,  172  jf. 
t  Rogers,  HBA.,  ii,  154  fj.;  KB.,  ii,  56  /}. 


9'-"  265 

seeing  that  the  days  of  the  empire  were  numbered,  headed  a  move- 
ment for  independence,  they  found  that  they  had  underrated  the 
resources  of  Artaxerxes  III  and  overestimated  the  courage  and 
loyalty  of  their  own  ruler,  and  they  saw  their  city  destroyed  with 
thousands  of  its  inhabitants.*  The  writer  may  have  had  this  un- 
happy event  in  mind.  His  message  to  the  Sidonians  is  that  with 
all  their  boasted  shrewdness  they  cannot  prevent  its  repetition. 

3.  Tyre,  like  Sidon,  originally  stood  on  the  mainland,  where  the 
skill  and  courage  of  its  people  were  constantly  taxed  to  defend  it; 
but  in  process  of  time  it  took  possession  of  a  little  group  of  islands 
half  a  mile  from  the  shoref  and  there  buili  itself  a  stronghold.% 
The  new  site,  according  to  Menander,  was  greatly  enlarged  and 
beautified  by  Hiram  the  friend  of  David  and  Solomon.  It  was 
so  easily  defensible  that  for  centuries  the  city  defied  the  most  pow- 
erful adversaries.  The  Assyrians  for  five  years,  and  the  Baby- 
lonians under  Nebuchadrezzar  for  thirteen,  besieged  it  in  vain. 

"Hiram  raised  the  bank  in  the  large  place  and  dedicated  the  golden  pillar 
which  is  in  the  temple  of  Zeus.  He  also  went  and  cut  down  timber  on  the 
mountain  called  Libanus  for  the  roofs  of  temples;  and  when  he  had  pulled 
down  the  ancient  temples,  he  built  both  the  temple  of  Hercules  and  that 
of  Astarte."     Quoted  by  Josephus,  viii,  5,  3. 

All  that  is  known  of  the  siege  by  the  Assyrians  is  derived  from  Menander, 
who  says:  "The  king  of  Assyria  returned  and  attacked  them  (the  Tyrians) 
again,  the  Phoenicians  furnishing  him  with  three-score  ships  and  eight  hundred 
men  to  row  them.  But,  when  the  Tyrians  sailed  against  them  in  twelve  ships, 
and  dispersed  the  enemies'  ships,  and  took  five  hundred  prisoners,  the  reputa- 
tion of  all  the  citizens  of  Tyre  was  thereby  increased.  Then  the  king  of  As- 
syria returned  and  placed  guards  at  their  river  and  aqueducts,  to  hinder  the 
Tyrians  from  drawing  water.  This  continued  for  five  years,  and  still  the  Tyr- 
ians held  out,  and  drank  of  the  water  they  got  from  wells  which  they  dug." 
The  king  of  Assyria  at  that  time,  according  to  Josephus,  from  whose  Antiqui- 
ties (ix,  14,  2)  the  above  quotation  is  taken,  was  Shalmaneser;  but  since, 
according  to  Menander,  the  king  of  Tyre  was  Elulaeus,  and  this  was  the  name 
of  the  one  that  was  reigning  when  Sennacherib  invaded  the  country  {KB., 
ii,  90/.),  it  is  possible  that,  as  has  been  suggested,  the  Jewish  historian  "made 
a  mistake  and  ascribed  to  Shalmaneser  a  siege  of  Tyre  which  was  really  made 
by  Sennacherib."     Cf.  Rogers,  HBA.,  ii,  146. 

Josephus  cites  (Ant.,  x,  11,  i)  Philostratus  as  his  authority  for  the  length 
of  this  siege.     That  it  resulted  in  failure,  although  Ezekiel  at  first  (26'  ff) 

*  Diod.  Sic,  x\i,  40  jf. 

t  Thereafter  the  original  city  was  called  Old  Tyre.     C/.  Josephus,  Anl.,  ix,  14,  2;  Diod. 
Sic,  xvii,  40. 

X  The  original  has  a  play  on  the  name  of  the  city. 


^1 


266  ZECHARIAH 

expected  it  to  succeed,  is  clear  from  Ez.  29"  "•,  where  the  prophet  acknowl- 
edges that  Nebuchadrezzar  "had  no  wages,  nor  his  army,  for  Tyre,  for  the 
service  that  he  had  served  against  it,"  but  promises  him  the  land  of  Egypt  "as 
a  recompense." 

In  fact  Tyre  was  never  taken  until  Alexander  connected  it  by  a 
causeway  with  the  mainland  and  brought  his  engines  to  bear  upon 
its  walls.  Meanwhile  its  merchants  traversed  all  seas,  exchanging 
their  manufactures  for  the  products  of  other  countries,  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth.  Thus,  in  the  words  with  which  Ezekiel  closes  his 
description  of  its  activities  {2f^)  this  great  emporium  was  "re- 
plenished and  made  very  glorious  in  the  heart  of  the  seas."  The 
present  writer  uses  language  quite  as  picturesque  and  forcible, 
if  not  so  elegant,  as  Ezekiel's.  He  says  that,  when  he  wrote,  the 
city  had  heaped  up  silver  like  the  dust,  and  gold  like  the  mud  of  the 
streets. — 4.  Tyre  was  very  prosperous  when  this  passage  was  writ- 
ten, but  the  author  of  it  did  not  expect  its  prosperity  to  continue. 
Indeed  he  predicts  the  reverse.  Lo,  he  says,  Yahweh  will  despoil 
it.  The  next  clause  is  capable  of  more  than  one  interpretation, 
the  crucial  word,  rendered  power  in  EV.,  having  several  meanings; 
but  the  fact  that  the  emphasis,  thus  far,  has  been  on  the  wealth 
of  the  city  seems  to  require  that  the  text  should  say.  Yea,  he  will 
smite  into  the  sea,  not  its  might,^  or  its  bulwark,'^  but  its  wealth,  in 
the  sense  not  only  of  gold  and  silver,  but  all  the  luxuries  that  these 
precious  metals  represent.  J  This  is  in  harmony,  too,  with  the  pre- 
diction of  Ezekiel  (37"),  that  the  riches  of  the  city  shall  "fall  into 
the  heart  of  the  sea."  Nor  is  this  all.  The  city  itself,  the  temples 
of  its  gods,  the  factories  and  storehouses  of  its  commerce  and  the 
dwellings,  great  and  small,  of  its  inhabitants  shall  be  devoured  by 
fire.  Thus  the  miserable  remnant  of  its  population  will  be  left 
on  "a  bare  rock,"  "a  place  to  spread  nets  in  the  midst  of  the  sea." 
Cf  Ez.  26*  *• 

5.  Philistia  has  four  representatives,  and  only  four,  Gath  being 
omitted  here  as  it  is  in  Am.  i"^-.  Nor  is  this  the  only  point  of 
resemblance  between  the  two  passages.  There  are  two  or  three 
expressions  in  this  one  that  betray  acquaintance  with,  but  not  sla- 

♦  So  Jer.,  Theod.  Mops.,  New.,  Rosenm.,  Burger,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Brd.,  Or.,  Reu.,  Sta.,  rt  al. 
t  SoMau.,Hi.,We.,Now.,Marti,OASm.,  elal. 
X  So  Ew.,  Hd.,  tl  al. 


9'-'  267 

vish  imitation  of,  the  other.  They  differ  entirely  with  respect  to 
the  order  in  which  the  cities  are  introduced.  Amos  takes  them 
in  the  order  of  their  importance.  This  author  follows  the  arrange- 
ment of  Je.  2^^.  His  first,  therefore,  is  Ashkelon.  He  predicts 
that  this  ancient  city,  situated  on  the  coast,  about  thirty  miles 
south  of  Jaffa,  shall  see  and  fear,  that  is,  when  it  sees  the  devasta- 
tion wrought  in  Phoenicia,  will  be  smitten  with  fear  in  anticipa- 
tion of  a  like  fate.  Gazc^whose  position  on  the  edge  of  the  desert 
made  it  the  most  important  place  in  southern  Palestine  long  before 
the  Philistines  appeared  in  the  country,  and  explains  its  survival, 
with  a  population  of  35,000, — Gaza,  he  says,  will  be  similarly  and 
even  more  powerfully  affected ;  it  shall  be  in  great  anguish.  Ekron 
also,  on  the  northern  boundary  of  Philistia,  will  share  the  prevail^ 
ing  consternation,  because  its  hope,  that  is,  as  the  use  of  the  same 
word  in  Is.  20"  ^-  would  indicate,  the  place  to  which  it  has  been 
looking  for  support,  hath  been  put  to  shame.  This  is  clearly  a  ref- 
erence to  Tyre,  which  implies  that  the  city  was  in  alliance  with 
Ekron  and  probably  with  the  other  cities  of  Philistia  when  it  was 
written.  The  fears  of  these  communities  will  be  realised.  There 
shall  cease  to  be  a  king  in  Gaza;  it  will  lose  its  independence  and  be 
incorporated  into  a  larger  political  whole.  A  still  worse  fate  is  in 
store  ior  Ashkelon,  for  it  shall  not  remain,*  or  better,  shall  not  be, 
that  is,  shall  cease  to  be,  inhabited.'^  These  two  lines  betray  the 
influence  of  Amos  (i^) ;  but  the  order  of  thought  is  reversed,  while 
Gaza  has  taken  the  place  of  Ashkelon,  and  Ashkelon  that  of  Ash- 
dod. — 6.  Thus  far  no  mention  has  been  made  of  Ashdod,  next  to 
Gaza  the  most  important  city  of  Philistia,  and  famous  for  having  in 
the  seventh  century  B.C.  sustained  the  longest  (27  years)  siege  on 
record. I  The  prediction  with  reference  to  it  belongs  at  the  end  of 
the  preceding  verse,  or  rather,  it  and  the  last  two  clauses  of  the  pre- 
ceding verse  should  have  been  grouped  together  in  a  verse  by  them- 
selves. This  city  is  not  to  be  deserted  like  Ashkelon,  but  its  native 
inhabitants,  or  the  better  class  of  them,  are  to  be  replaced  by  mon- 
grels, lit.,  a  bastard.     Cf.  Dt.  23'/^    Here,  apparently,  is  an  allu- 

*  So  Hi.,  Ew.,  Burger,  Brd..  el  al.  t  Is.  132°  Je.  i7«  5o'3  39  Ez.  29". 

X  Cf.  Herodotus,  ii,  157.  Petrie  suggests  that  this  siege  took  place  during  the  Scythian  in- 
vasion and  represents  the  long  struggle  in  which  Psammetichus  I  finally  defeated  the  barba- 
rians.   HE.y  ii.  331  /. 


268  ZECHARIAH 

sion  to  the  deterioration  of  the  population  of  Palestine  during  and 
after  the  Captivity,  as  pictured  in  Ne.  13^^  ^■,  or  the  mixed  char- 
acter of  the  people  with  whom  the  country  had  been  colonised  by 
its  conquerors.*  There  follows  a  stanza,  only  the  first  line  of 
which  appears  in  this  verse,  describing  the  discipline  by  which 
Yahweh  purposes  to  prepare  the  remnant  of  the  Philistines  and 
their  successors  for  incorporation  among  his  people.  The  transi- 
tion is  marked  by  a  change  from  the  third  to  the  first  person. 
Thus  will  I,  says  Yahweh,  destroy  the  pride  0/  the  Philistines;  not 
any  object  of  which  they  boast  (Am.  8^),  but  a  disposition  prompt- 
ing them  to  follow  the  "devices  and  desires"  of  their  own  hearts 
without  reference  to  the  will  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  10"  Is.  16^  Je.  13^  ^■, 
etc. — 7.  The  new  inhabitants,  the  despised  mongrels,  will  not  be 
of  this  spirit,  but  will  submit  to  have  Yahweh  remove  their  blood 
from  their  mouths,  that  is,  forbid  them  to  eat  blood,  which  the  He- 
brews were  commanded  (Dt.  12^®-  ^^  ^■)  to  "pour  upon  the  ground 
like  water,"  but  which  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Philistines  and  other 
Gentiles  to  eat  with  the  flesh  of  their  sacrifices.  Cf.  Ez.  ;^f^.  He 
will  also  remove  their  abominations  from  between  their  teeth;  these 
abominations  being  animals  forbidden  by  the  Mosaic  law  (Dt. 
14^^-  Lv.  11^^-))  such  as  dogs,  swine  and  mice,  which  the  Phil- 
istines sometimes  sacrificed  to  their  false  gods  and  ate  at  their  festi- 
vals. Cf.  Is.  65*  66^-  ^^.  The  abandonment  of  such  meats,  with 
all  that  it  implies,  by  the  Philistines  is  the  condition  of  their  con- 
tinuance in  the  Holy  Land.  Having  accepted  this  condition,  how- 
ever, they  will  be  enrolled  among  the  Chosen  People.  Cf.  2"  8'^. 
Yea,  says  the  prophet,  returning  to  the  third  person,  and  applying 
to  these  aliens  a  term  full  of  the  tenderest  significance,  they  shall 
become  a  remnant  to  our  God. 

"Just  as  in  the  case  of  Israel,  after  they  had  by  the  penalty  of  deportation 
been  winnowed,  cleansed  and  reSned,  there  remained  a  remnant  that  now 
serves  Jehovah  faithfully,  so  also  the  Philistine  people,  when  Jehovah's 
punitive  visitation  has  passed  over  them,  will  not  be  wholly  annihilated,  but 
survive  in  a  remnant  of  its  former  being,  and  indeed  a  remnant  for  Israel's 
God;  thus  the  Philistines  also  will  then  have  become  a  willingly  submissive 
and  active  servant  of  Jehovah."     Kiihler. 

*  When  .Mcxander  took  Gaza,  the  men  of  the  city  ha\-ing  been  killed,  "he  sold  the  women 
into  slavery  and  repcopled  the  city  from  the  neighbouring  settlers."    C/.  Arrianus,  ii,  27. 


9*"*  269 

Then  there  will  be  presented  another  instance  of  a  process  many 
times  repeated  in  the  early  history  of  the  Hebrews;  for  the  Phil- 
istines shall  be  like  a  family  in  Judah,  even  Ekron  like  the  Jebusites, 
the  Jebusites  being  the  early  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  who  were 
not  destroyed,  but  gradually  absorbed  by  their  Hebrew  con- 
querors.* The  prophet  does  not  say  what  will  become  of  the 
surviving  Syrians  and  Phoenicians,  but  he  would  probably  have 
admitted  them  to  the  same  privileges,  on  the  same  conditions,  as 
the  Philistines. 

8.  The  plain  of  Philistia  lay  on  the  route  between  Egypt  and  the 
regions  north  and  east  of  Palestine.  When,  therefore,  there  was 
war  between  Asia  and  Africa  the  armies  of  the  contending  ix)wers 
passed  to  and  fro  over  it,  sometimes  made  it  the  scene  of  conflict. 
At  such  times  the  Hebrews  suffered  only  less  than  the  Philistines. 
It  would  evidently  have  been  for  their  advantage  if  they  had  been 
strong  enough  to  occupy  the  approaches  to  the  plain  and  hold 
them  against  all  comers.  The  Jews  believed  that  Alexander  had 
been  restrained  from  attacking  them  by  Yahweh,  and  that  he  could 
always  protect  them.  This  verse  was  added  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  expression  to  a  prevailing  faith  as  well  as  bringing  the  proph- 
ecy to  which  it  is  attached  into  closer  harmony  with  history.  Then 
will  I,  Yahweh  is  made  to  say,  encamp  over  against  my  house,  an 
outpost,  that  none  may  pass  to  or  fro.  The  words  betray  their  sec- 
ondary origin,  not  only  by  their  prosaic  form,  but  by  their  con- 
tent; for  the  kingdom  described  in  v.  "  would  hardly  need  even 
figurative  fortifications.  The  most  significant  thing  about  them, 
however,  is  the  phrase  my  house.  Now,  the  house  of  Yahweh  is 
generally  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Cf.  i^^  3^,  etc.  In  Ho.  8*  9^^ 
and  Je.  12'^-,  however,  it  is  the  Holy  Land,  and  since  the  author 
of  the  gloss  clearly  has  in  mind  the  protection  of  the  people  rather 
than  the  sanctuary  of  Yahweh,  this  seems  to  be  what  is  here  meant 
by  it.  On  this  supposition  the  next  clause,  so  shall  there  not  pass 
over  them  again  an  oppressor,  becomes  more  intelligible.  The  pro- 
noun them  refers  to  the  people  of  the  land  and  the  whole  clause 
is  an  assurance  that  the  hardships  which  the  Jews  have  endured 

*  In  I  K.  9-°  there  is  a  different,  but  less  probable,  representation  of  their  condition.     Cf. 
HPS.,  158. 


270  ZECHARIAH 

from  their  rival  masters  are  ended.  Cf.  Jo.  4/3".  It  is  these 
hardships  to  which  Yahweh  refers  when  he  adds, /or  now  have  I 
seen  with  my  eyes.  On  the  relation  of  this  verse  to  the  subject 
of  the  date  of  vv.  ^"'',  see  p.  253. 

1.  NU'c]  05,  XwMi;  H,  o«M5;  &  om.  On  the  varieties  of  construction, 
see  2  K.  9"  Is.  15'  Pr.  31'  Is.  13'. — Tnri]  (&'^^,  SeSpdx;  (6^'-',  ^edpaK-  but 
some  curss.  have  'Adpdx,  also  Aq.  2  0;  QT,  Nom,  the  South.  Stade's  pro- 
posal to  repeat  the  name  nini  has  been  discussed  in  the  comments  and, 
for  what  seem  good  reasons,  rejected.  The  emendation  suggested  by  Is. 
9'/*  requires  the  insertion  of  ^D:^  before  or  hs-^  after  T\in  y-\h2. — irnp] 
<S,  Ovffla  aiTTov  =  vinjp,  a  serious  but  natural  error,  explained  by  the 
absence  of  vowels  in  the  original  text.  The  reading  is  forbidden  by  the 
measure,  which  requires  that  this  word  have  tw-o  beats.  Cf.  v.  '. — 
mN  py  nin^S]  These  words  have  generally  been  rendered  in  one  of  two 
ways.  The  first  is  that  of  05  &  01,  which  makes  them  mean  that  Yahweh 
hath  an  eye  on  man  or  something  equivalent.  So  Cyr.,  Grot.,  de  D.,  Dru., 
Marck,  Pem.,  New.,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Burger,  Ke.,  Koh.,  Reu., 
Sta.,  We.,  Now.,  GASm.,  et  al.  This  rendering,  if  it  were  grammatically 
justifiable,  would  not  suit  the  connection;  for,  especially  if  the  next  clause 
be  retained,  it  would  naturally  imply  a  favourable  attitude  on  the  part 
of  Yahweh,  while  the  tone  of  the  prophecy  is  for  the  time  being  hostile  to 
the  gentiles.  The  other  rendering,  toward  Yahweh  is  the  eye  of  man, 
namely,  in  adoration,  which  is  favoured  by  Jer.,  AE.,  Ra.,  Ki.,  Cal.,  Bla., 
Rib.,  Hd.,  Klie.,  Brd.,  Pu.,  et  al.,  is  grammatically  somewhat  less  ob- 
jectionable, but  it  is  so  foreign  to  the  context  that  one  must  choose  be- 
tween rejecting  it  and  pronouncing  the  whole  clause  of  secondary  origin. 
If,  however,  as  has  been  shown,  the  next  line  is  a  gloss,  this  one  must  be 
retained  to  complete  the  measure.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  to 
adopt  the  emendation  of  Klo.,  oivX  ny  for  aiN  py,  until  a  better  has  been 
suggested.  Those  of  Mich,  (din  pj,')  and  Ball  (a-^N  D>')  are  less  attrac- 
tive.— The  metrical  scheme  on  which  the  rest  of  the  prophecy  is  con- 
structed requires  that  this  verse  and  the  next  together  have  only  six  lines. 
It  is  therefore  necessary  to  omit  one,  and  since,  as  has  been  shown  in 
the  comments,  the  last  of  this  verse  is  superfluous,  it  is  the  one  to  be 
omitted. — 2.  ncn]  (g^^,  iv  'E/jAO.  (6^Q,  however,  omit  the  prep.,  and 
rightly,  since  this  name,  like  (original)  '">>'  of  the  preceding  verse,  is  the 
subject  of  the  sentence,  and  not  the  object  of  a  3  to  be  supplied. — '^3Jn] 
The  rel.  is  to  be  supplied.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'  '"■  s  c^hi  ).  Houb.  would  rd.  nr'^3J3, 
in  its  border. — ix]  The  argument  against  this  name  runs  as  follows:  The 
line  is  overfilled.  The  vb.,  being  singular,  requires  but  one  subject,  and 
since  this  one  lacks  a  connective  and,  moreover,  is  entirely  unnecessary, 
it  must  be  the  gloss. — On  '3  in  the  sense  of  though,  cf.  Mi.  7";  BDB.,  art. 


9'""  271 

'D,  2,  b  (b). — nc3n]  (S,  i<f>p6i'rj<rav  =  icon  which  We.,  e<  al.,  ignoring  met- 
rical considerations,  regard  as  the  original. — 3 .  "MXD  is]  A  good  example 
of  paronomasia,  like  Tyre  a  tower. — I'nni]  d^Q  insert  the  vb.  (rw-riyayev 
after  the  connective,  but  there  is  no  room  for  one  in  the  original. — 4 .  ■'Jin] 
19  Kenn.  mss.,  and  many  others  collated  by  de  R.,  rd.  r^^n■>^  which, 
since  the  word  here  found  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  these  chapters, 
may  well  be  the  original  reading. — nixin]  In  the  expression  here  used  the 
word  seems  to  have  been  definite  vnthout  the  art.  At  any  rate  the  art. 
is  always  (5  t.)  omitted.  Cf.  lo^. — oo]  The  position  of  this  word,  im- 
mediately after  the  vb.,  indicates  that  it  was  intended  to  mark,  not  the 
place  where,  but  the  one  whither,  the  wealth  will  be  smitten. 

5.  nit]  Sometimes  pointed  N"i,n,  with  the  accent,  which  seems  to  have 
been  thrown  forward,  in  this  case  as  in  Gn.  4153  and  Mi.  y'",  to  distribute 
the  emphasis,  still  on  the  ultima]  The  form  is  jussive,  but  the  use  of  the 
simple  impf .  of  the  co-ordinate  vb.,  Sinn  suggests  that  the  significance  of 
this  fact  might  easily  be  exaggerated.  Perhaps  this  form  was  chosen  in 
anticipation  of  the  co-ordinate  vSiip,  in  other  words,  furnishes  another  ex- 
ample of  paronomasia.  On  the  form  and  accent,  see  Ges.  5  's-  s.  rr.  3  (*> 
"-■^  >^  on  the  meaning,  Ges.  ^i"-  2  <*';  Bo.  ^'s"-  ';  Dr.5  68._c;>3,n]  For 
c^an,  from  ria.  Cf.  Ges.  5 '».  Hiph.  in  the  sense  of  Qal.  For  other  ex- 
amples, see  ID*-  "  11^  12'"  145. — n£33c]  On  the  vocalisation  ^^  for  __,  see 
Ges. 5^' 9-  3;  ".  3  «)  R.  2  (a)_  We.  ids.  nnoan;  also  Now.,  GASm.,  but 
Marti  Justly  objects,  that,  in  view  of  Is.  20^  '-,  where  the  same  form  is 
found,  there  is  no  warrant  for  emendation. — 12 ni]  Note  that  with  the  be- 
ginning of  the  latter  half  of  the  double  tristich  the  author  returns  to  the 
regular  usage  with  reference  to  the  succession  of  vbs. — 3rp]  Here  pas- 
sive. Cf.  Is.  132°  Je.  ly^-  ^^,  etc.  It  is  a  late  usage,  frequent  in  the  Mish- 
na.  Cf.  Holzinger,  ZAW.,  1889,  115;  Ko.  ^  ^s.  Cp.  v. «  28/4  126  1410. 
— 6.  The  first  clause  of  this  verse,  as  explained  in  the  comments,  be- 
longs with  the  last  two  of  v.  ^.  The  mention  of  Ashdod  is  postponed  by 
the  second  references  to  Gaza  and  Ashkelon,  that  it  may  at  the  same  time 
close  the  enumeration  and  the  double  tristich  devoted  to  the  cities  of 
Philistia. — iicc]  A  collective,  from  irn,  be  bad;  hence  something  vile, 
contemptible;  &,  ^f^  Che.  ids.  "^-^^ij^,  hss.mindidu,  tax-gatherer ;  EB., 
art.  Scribe,  §  4. — 7.  imoni]  Here  begins  a  new  stanza,  the  third,  on 
the  Philistines  as  a  whole. — vm]  If,  as  the  use  of  ^'•^pt'  in  the  next  line 
would  indicate,  the  blood  here  meant  is  that  of  animals,  this  is  the  only 
place  in  which  the  pi.  of  ai  is  used  in  that  sense.  Yet  there  is  no  ap- 
parent reason  why  it  should  not  be  so  used,  especially  if  the  writer  wished 
to  convey  the  impression  that  there  was  a  large  quantity  from  a  great 
number  of  victims.  Perhaps,  however,  the  original  reading  was  t:i  as 
in  Kenn.  30.  See  also  d,  which  in  eight  of  the  eleven  cases  in  which  the 
pi.  occurs  in  the  Minor  Prophets  follows  the  Heb.  idiom,  but  in  this  one 
has  the  sg.     The  sf.  is  collective.     Hence  the  word  should  be  rendered 


272  ZECHARIAH 

their,  not  his,  blood.  Render  also  their  mouths,  their  abominations  and 
their  teeth.  Cp.  EV.,  where  the  translators  have  obscured  the  sense 
by  following  the  Heb.  idiom.  Cf.  Ges.  ^i**-  '  <■■)  '^. — vxpc]  Here  only 
in  the  sense  of  y^v,  forbidden  food,  which  does  not  occur  in  the  pi. — n'?'*^] 
The  noun,  pointed  as  it  is  here,  generally  means  chief,  but,  when  thus 
pronounced  in  the  sg.,  it  always  elsewhere  has  i.  Moreover,  the  mean- 
ing chief  is  not  the  one  required  in  this  connection.  Hence  Ort. 
and  others  rd.  lb?<3  in  the  sense  oi family.  Cf.  Ju.  6'^  i  S.  lo"-  ".  So 
Sta.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — The  last  line,  like  the  third  of  the  first 
stanza,  has  only  two  words,  but  the  second  has  two  beats.  Cf.  v.  '. — 
van  H.,  because  he  thinks  that  the  sfs.  in  this  verse  refer  to  itcc,  rear- 
ranges the  lines  in  vv.  ^  '•  as  follows:  vv.  '•  *»  '"-"^  ^^,  but  the  prophet 
would  hardly  close  with  a  threat  of  destruction. — This  verse  furnishes 
an  instance  of  the  way  in  which  the  text  sometimes  lends  itself  to  the 
most  fantastic  treatment.  Houb.  renders  ^Sn  an  ox,  and  by  a  slight 
change  in  'DO'  (idi3n)  provides  him  with /m5  j/aWe. — 8.  njxc]  Qr.  N3xc; 
also  some  mss.,  U,  and  many  exegetes.  The  prep,  supposed  to  be  rep- 
resented by  D  is  sometimes  rendered  on  account  of  (Dru.,  Hd.),  but  more 
frequently  against,  or  the  like.  So  Ra.,  Ki.,  Marck,  Grot.,  Rosenm., 
Mau.,  Hi.,  Burger,  Ke.,  Pres.,  Kui.,  Rub.,  We.,  et  al.  It  seems  best, 
however,  to  retain  the  present  text,  pointing  it,  not  with  (5  &,  ^s^c,  but, 
as  in  I  S.  1412,  ^^^d.  So  Bo.,  Ort,  Koh.,  Brd.,  Sta.,  Now.,  Marti, 
GASm.,  et  al. — On  ac'si  nays,  see  7". 

(2)  Tlie  future  ruler  (9"  ^•). — The  coming  king  is  announced, 
and  his  character  and  mission  described;  also  the  extent  of  his 
kingdom. 

9.  In  the  preceding  prophecy,  as  originally  written,  there  was 
no  reference  to  the  territory  occupied  at  any  time  by  the  Hebrews. 
It  was  taken  for  granted  that  it  would  be  restored  to  them  as  a 
united  people.  This  implies  the  resumption  by  Jerusalem  of  its 
ancient  pre-eminence  as  the  national  capital.  It  is  natural,  there- 
fore, that  here  the  scene  should  be  laid  in  the  Holy  City,  or,  to  adopt 
the  author's  figure,  that  she  should  welcome  the  promised  king. 
The  prophet  bids  her  exult,  yes,  shout,  giving  unrestrained  expres- 
sion to  her  joy.  He  calls  her,  first,  literally,  daughter  Sion,  the 
word  daughter  being  little  more  than  a  sign  of  personification  as  a 
female;  which,  however,  for  the  sake  of  greater  definiteness  may 
be  rendered  fair  or  comely.  The  reason  for  exultation  is  found  in 
the  announcement,  Lo,  thy  king  shall  come  to  thee,  which  completes 
the  sense  and  closes  the  first  tristich.    The  rest  of  the  verse  con- 


9'  '■  m 

stitutes  another  the  theme  of  which  is  the  character  of  the  king. 
He  is  just.  This  term  has  various  shades  of  meaning.  Thus,  it 
denotes  the  impartiality  that  should  characterise  the  ideal  judge; 
and  at  first  sight,  it  seems  as  if  here,  as  in  Is.  ii^  and  Je.  23'',  this 
were  the  quahty  attributed  to  him.*  The  king  of  this  passage, 
however,  differs  greatly  from  the  one  predicted  by  the  other  two 
prophets.  The  writer  was  evidently  acquainted  with  the  Servant 
of  Yahweh  as  pictured  by  the  Second  Isaiah.  Indeed,  he  seems 
here  to  have  imdertaken  to  combine  this  conception  with  that  of 
a  royal  conqueror. 

It  was  the  difficulty  of  combining  the  two  that  finally  led  the  Jews  to  accept 
the  doctrine  that  there  would  be  two  Messiahs,  a  son  of  David  who  would  live 
and  reign  forever,  and  a  son  of  Joseph  who  must  precede  the  other  and  "by 
his  death  provide  atonement  and  expiation  for  the  sins  of  Israel,  opening  to 
the  regal  Messiah  and  his  people  the  way  to  the  creation  of  the  glorious  king- 
dom" for  which  they  waited.  Cf.  Weber,  Altsynagogale  paliistinische  Tlie- 
ologie,  346/. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  that,  in  calling  his  king  just,  he  had 
in  mind  the  vindication  promised  the  suffering  Servant.  Cf.  Is. 
50*  53^^  ^'-  This  sort  of  justness  is  closely  related  to  salvation, 
deliverance.  In  Is.  45*  62^  and  elsewhere  they  are  treated  as  sub- 
stantially synonymous.  This  being  the  case,  it  is  not  surprising 
to  find  that  the  second  term  here  used,  which  is  rendered  victo- 
rious, as  it  should  be  also,  for  example,  in  Dt.  t,^^^,  is  really  a  pas- 
sive participle  which,  in  another  connection,  might  properly  be 
translated  saved  or  delivered.  In  other  words,  the  person  here 
described,  though  still  a  king,  is  not  the  proud  and  confident  figure 
of  the  earlier  prophecies.  See  Is.  9^/^  Mi.  5^/^  etc.  He  is  vic- 
torious, not  in  himself  or  anything  that  he  personally  commands, 
but  by  the  grace,  and  in  the  might,  of  the  God  of  Israel.  Cf. 
Ps,  20'/®  33^®.  His  triumph,  therefore,  is  the  triumph  of  the  faith 
of  the  Servant  of  Yahweh.  Cf.  Is.  49*  50^^-.  A  triumph  of  this 
kind,  while  it  forbids  pride,  ought  not  to  produce  an  effect  in  any 
sense  or  degree  unhappy.  Therefore,  although  the  third  epithet 
is  generally  best  rendered  by  afflicted  or  one  of  its  synonyms,  it  is 
better  in  this  case,  as  in  Ps.  18^*/^^,  for  example,  following  the 

*  So  Mau.,  Ke.,  Or.,  Reu.,  el  al. 


274  ZECHARIAH 

y  Targum  and  the  Greek  and  Syriac  versions,  to  translate  it  humble.* 
This  rendering  harmonises  with  the  following  context,  where  the 
king  is  described  as  manifesting  his  humility  by  making  his  entry 
into  his  capital  mounted,  not  on  a  prancing  horse  suggesting  war 
and  conquest,  but  on  an  ass.]  With  the  picture  here  presented 
compare  Je.  22^  with  its  "kings  riding  in  chariots  and  on  horses." 
The  difference  between  the  two  shows  how  great  a  change  took 
place  in  the  ideals  and  expectations  of  the  Jews  during  and  after 
the  Exile. — 10.  A  king  of  the  character  described  could  not  be 
expected  to  take  any  pleasure  in  arms.  The  writer  is  consistent, 
therefore,  in  giving  him  no  part  in  the  subjugation  of  the  hitherto 
un conquered  portions  of  his  kingdom;  also  in  predicting  that  on 
his  accession  he  will  destroy  the  chariot  from  Ephraim,  and  the 
horse  from  Jerusalem.  It  is  a  mistake  to  infer  from  these  words 
that  the  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  were  in  existence  when  they 
were  written ;  and  equally  erroneous  to  suppose  that  chariots  were 
then  used  only  in  the  northern,  and  horses  only  in  the  southern, 
part  of  the  country.  The  words  are  arranged  as  they  are  to  satisfy 
the  Hebrew  fondness  for  parallelism.  What  they  mean  is  that  the 
king  will  banish  both  chariots  and  horses  for  military  purposes 
from  his  entire  dominion.  If  the  name  Ephraim  has  any  special 
significance,  it  must  have  been  intended  to  remind  the  reader  that 
in  the  good  time  coming  all  the  tribes  would  be  reunited.  Cf. 
Je.  3^^  23",  etc.  In  that  day  not  only  chariots  and  horses,  the  more 
imposing  paraphernalia  of  militarism,  but  the  war  bow,  the  bow  so 
far  as  it  is  used  in  war,  shall  be  destroyed.  In  Mi.  5®/*"  ^-  horses 
and  chariots  are  devoted  to  destruction  because  they,  like  witches, 
idols,  etc.,  are  offensive  to  Yahweh.  Here,  however,  as  in  Ho.  i' 
and  2^"/'*,  both  of  which  are  postexilic,  it  is  because  they  are  no 
longer  needed,  Yahweh,  who  has  wrought  the  restoration  of  his 
people,  being  their  suflScient  protection.  Cf.  2'/^.  Nor  will  the 
reign  of  peace  be  confined  to  the  Promised  Land.  The  king  to 
be,  the  Prince  of  Peace  of  Is.  9^/^,  will  also  speak  peace  to  the 
nations.     This  statement,  in  the  light  of  Is.  42^,  where  the  Servant 

♦  Mt.  21',  of  course,  follows  the  Greek.  Jn.  12'^  does  not  reproduce  this  part  of  the 
prophecy. 

t  Note  that  the  prophet  does  not,  as  Mt.  21'  would  lead  one  to  suppose,  predict  the  use  of 
two  asses,  but,  as  Jn.  12'-  puts  it,  a  single  young  animal. 


9'  '•  275 

of  Yahweh  is  represented  as  bringing  forth  justice  for  the  nations, 
seems  to  mean  that  he  will  act  as  arbiter  among  the  peoples,  and 
by  the  justice  of  his  decisions  make  appeals  to  arms  unnecessary. 
"One  nation  shall"  then  "not  uplift  the  sword  against  another, 
neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more."  CJ.  Mi.  4^  (Is.  2*)  Is. 
42^-  *.  The  final  clause  further  defines  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  king's  authority.  He  shall  rule,  it  says,  from  sea  to  sea,  and 
from  the  River  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The  terms  used  are  not 
without  ambiguity.  For  example,  it  is  not  clear  whether  from 
sea  to  sea  has,  as  some  assert,  the  same  force  as  "from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  to  its  setting"  (Ps.  50^)*  or  refers  to  definite  bodies  of 
water.  The  latter  view  has  in  its  favour  the  following  considera- 
tions: (i)  The  operations  preparatory  to  the  advent  of  the  king, 
as  described  in  the  preceding  prophecy,  are  confined  to  a  limited 
area.  (2)  The  Hebrews  are  elsewhere  taught  to  expect  final  pos- 
session of  a  country  with  definite,  if  not  always  the  same,  hmits. 
Cf.  Ex.  23^  Nu.  34' «•  Ez.  47''ff-.  (3)  The  northern  boundary 
here  given,  clearly  the  Euphrates,  being  the  same  as  in  various 
other  passages,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  seas  correspond 
to  those  by  which,  according  to  the  same  passages,  the  territory 
described  was  to  a  great  extent  enclosed,  namely,  the  Dead  Sea  and 
the  Mediterranean.  True,  on  the  fourth,  or  south,  side  there  is 
no  definite  limit,  but  this  is  not  strange  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the 
country,  there  being  no  great  obstacle  to  expansion  in  that  direc- 
tion. The  teaching  of  the  passage,  therefore,  seems  to  be  that, 
while  the  coming  king,  like  Solomon  (i  K.  10^  ^•)  and  the  Servant 
of  Yahweh  (Is.  49^),  will  exert  an  influence  upon,  and  receive  hom- 
age from,  the  nations  of  the  earth,  his  proper  kingdom  wUl  be  west- 
ern Palestine  in  its  ideal  dimensions.  For  a  later  and  more  ex- 
travagant form  of  this  prophecy,  see  Ps.  72®'^^. 

There  can  hardly  be  a  question  about  the  relation  of  this  to  the 
preceding  prophecy.  They  have  the  same  poetical  form,  and  were 
therefore  doubtless  intended  to  supplement  each  other.  As  a 
whole  they  admirably  illustrate  the  persistence  of  the  Messianic 
hope  among  the  Hebrews.  The  author,  apparently,  as  soon  as 
Alexander  appeared  on  his  horizon,  saw  in  the  young  Greek,  not 
only  the  conqueror  of  Asia,  but  the  forerunner  of  a  ruler  who  would 

*  So  Jer.,  Theodoret,  Rosenm.,  Burger,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  Brd.,  et  al. 


276 


ZECHARIAH 


restore  the  kingdom  of  David  and  make  it  the  admiration  of  the 
world.  The  first  part  of  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  a  measure 
when  Alexander  took  possession,  one  after  another,  of  the  cities 
named  and  many  others.  The  second  part  was  not  fulfilled,  but 
it  furnished  an  ideal,  faith  in  which  was  only  less  comforting  and 
edifying  than  its  realisation. 

9.  'Su]  With  the  accent  on  the  ultima.  CJ.  13';  Ges.  ^"-  '•  '^^  '.— 
nS]  For  T'Sn;  not  common.  Cf.  2  S.  12^  Am.  6',  etc.;  BDB.,  art. '^, 
I.  g  (*).  This  word  closes  the  first  tristich,  and  therefore  should  have 
received  athnach. — p'-ix]  Not  an  accusative  after  nis'',  but,  like  piru  a 
predicate  of  the  pronoun  Nin. — ^ju^i]  New.,  following  <S  H  (<rcifwr),rds. 
y_vi2,  Kit.  the  fuller  form  y^u'ic;  but,  as  appeared  in  the  comments,  the 
present  te-xt  is  supported  by  usage. — -Ji']  In  the  sense  of  uj.'.  So  (&  .'\q. 
(irpavs)  &  (j  n  i  •^Sr)  QI  (?!^1J>')-  The  confusion  between  the  two  arose 
from  the  development  in  the  signification  of  the  former.  Cf.  DB.,  art. 
Poor;  Rahlfs,  >jjj  und  uy  in  den  Psalmen,  89.  There  are  eight  pas- 
sages in  which  the  Mas.  corrected  the  text,  five  (Ps.  9IV12  lo'^  Pr.  t,'^  14" 
16")  in  which  they  point  Di'jy  with  the  vowels  of  dmj?,  and  three  (Am.  8< 
Is.  32'  Ps.  9"/'7)  in  which  they  have  made  the  reverse  change. — S;'i]  The 
1  is  explicative.  Cf.  Gn.  4*,  etc.;  Ges.  5'"-  "o'e  w);  Ko.  ^  '"^o. — hupn] 
A  pi.  of  species  best  translated  by  the  sg.  Cf.  Gn.  38"  i  S.  17'  Is.  50*, 
etc.;  Ges.  ^i2<-  >•  R-  «;  Ko.  %264a, — The  evangelists  in  citing  this  passage 
treated  it  with  unusual  freedom,  as  can  be  seen  by  a  comparison  between 
Mt.  21'  and  Jn.  12"*  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Heb.  or  Greek  of  Zechariah 
on  the  other: 


Hebrew. 

Greek. 

Matthew. 

John. 

^ND  ^Su    I 

Xa?jpe  <r<p68pa, 

EfTTore 

Mt;  <po^ov^ 

JVX   03 

Oiiyarep  ^eidv. 

ry  Ovyarpl  Ziiiiiv 

dvydrifp  Siw*/, 

n3  ^j?nn  2 

K-/ipv(T<rf  Oiyarep 

oSrn^ 

'Iepou<ra\i}/i. 

-yiSn  njn  3 

lSoi>  6  ^acriXfvs  txov 

'  l5o{>  6  ^affiXtijt  cov 

i5oi>  6  ^asiXiiJS  aov 

■^  Nn' 

(pXf^o-i-  (fOL 

HpXeral  <roi 

tpxerai 

J?B>1J1  pnx  4 

SlKaioi  Kal  adil^iov, 

Nin 

o(Jt6s 

3311  •'iV   5 

irpavs   Kal    iin&e- 

irpavs  ivi^(^7}Kui% 

Kad-fip>£vo% 

men  Sj; 

inl  viro^^iov 

^tI  6voi> 

I'j.'  Syi  6 

Kal  TTuXof 

Kal  iwl  irC)\ov 

iirl  irwKov 

nuHN  p 

v4ov 

vlbv  vtro^vylov 

&VOV. 

9""'  277 

It  will  be  observed  that  neither  of  the  evangelists  quotes  the  first  (met- 
rical) line,  but  that  Matthew  borrows  an  altogether  different  clause  from 
Is.  62",  while  John  seems  to  have  had  in  mind  Is.  54'',  where,  although 
the  name  does  not  occur,  the  daughter  of  Sion  is  addressed  as  clearly 
as  in  52'  ff-.  Both  omit  lines  2  and  4,  and  John  condenses  5  and  6 
into  a  single  clause,  the  result  being  that  Matthew  has  a  stanza  of 
four  and  John  one  of  three  lines  in  the  original  measure.  Note  also 
that  Matthew  quotes  the  original  as  far  as  he  goes,  while  John  follows 
neither  it  nor  (5. — 10.  ^mDni]  The  change  of  subject  disturbs  the  flow 
of  thought.  In  (§  ^  it  remains  the  same.  Rd.,  therefore,  n>iani, 
and  he,  etc.  So  Houb.,  New.,  Sta.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  van  H. — 
23i]  Observe  that  the  art.  with  n  is  not  found  in  vv.  >-'<'  and  that  it  oc- 
curs only  4  t.  without  this  consonant.  The  entire  omission  of  it  with  this 
and  the  two  following  nouns  may  be  due  to  the  poetical  character  of  the 
passage,  Ges.  ^'^e.  2  (/,)  R.j  Ko.  5292a;  or  this  may  be  another  case  like 
the  iSd  of  v.  *,  a  chariot  being  equivalent  to  every  chariot.  Cf.  Ho.  3^. — 
nmaji]  (S^r^  i^oXedpe^fferai  =  nnom;  so  &;  but  (6^*^Q  B  &"  SI  have 
the  passive. — aiSty  nam]  (S,  Kal  irXijSos  Kal  elpi^vrj  =  oiSci  311. — injci] 
One  of  five  instances  in  which  "inj,  when  it  means  the  Euphrates, 
wants  the  art.  The  others  are  Is.  720,  where,  according  to  Che.,  ^laya 
inj  should  be  nnjn  -\2y:3,  Je.  2I8,  where  Kenn.  i  has  "injn,  Mi.  7>2,  and 
Ps.  728,  the  last,  according  to  Baethgen,  copied  from  this  passage. 

The  prophecies  of  vv.  ^■^**  were  written  for  the  Jews  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century  B.C.,  but  in  their  present  form  they  serve 
a  new  purpose,  namely,  to  introduce  a  series  of  oracles  of  a  con- 
siderably later  date,  the  first  of  which  deals  with 

b.   A  promise  0/ freedom  and  prosperity  (9"'*^. 

Yahweh  promises  to  restore  the  exiled  Jews  inspire  them  with 
courage  to  meet  their  oppressors,  assist  them  in  the  conflict  and 
thenceforward  bestow  upon  them  his  favour  and  protection. 

11.  The  prophet,  having,  by  means  of  the  borrowed  passage 
(vv.  *"*"),  given  the  reader  a  glimpse  of  Yahweh's  ultimate  purpose, 
returns  to  the  present  and  addresses  Sion  in  her  actual  condition. 
O  thou,  he  begins,/ar  the  blood  of  thy  covenant  I  will  also  release  thy 
prisoners  from  the  pit.  The  prisoners  in  question  are  the  Jews  still 
in  exile.  The  Persian  as  well  as  the  Babylonian  empire  has  been 
overthrown,  yet  many  of  the  children  of  Sion  remain  scattered  in 
other  countries.     Yahweh  declares  that  he  has  released  them,  or 


278  ZECHARIAH 

is  on  the  point  of  releasing  them,  and  gives  his  reason  for  so  doing. 
It  is  found  in  the  blood  of  a  covenant  which  is  described  as  Sion's; 
but,  since  a  covenant  requires  two  parties,  and  in  this  case  the 
second  is  the  speaker  himself,  thy  covenant  is  clearly  equivalent 
to  my  covenant  with  thee.  The  blood  of  this  covenant  is  naturally 
the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  with  which  it  was  sealed.  When  did  the 
ceremony  occur  ?  There  are  those  who  find  here  an  allusion  to  the 
covenant  at  Sinai.  Cf.  Ex.  24^^^-.*  Others  deny  that  there  is 
a  reference  to  any  historical  event,  claiming  that  the  sacrifice  is  the 
daily  offering  of  the  temple.f  It  seems  still  better,  since  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Jews  to  their  country  is  concerned,  to  suppose,  with 
Pemble,  that  the  writer  had  in  mind  the  original  covenant  between 
Yahweh  and  Abraham  described  in  Gn.  if'^"-  "  ^^  on  which  they 
based  their  title  to  Canaan  and  of  which  the  one  at  Sinai  was  only 
a  repetition  and  the  daily  sacrifice  a  reminder.  It  was  their  neg- 
lect of  this  covenant  that  moved  Yahweh  to  drive  them  from  the 
country,  and  it  is  his  faithfulness  to  it  that  explains  the  prom- 
ise of  a  restoration.  Cf.  Je.  34"^-,  where  there  is  an  unmis- 
takable allusion  to  the  ceremony  at  Hebron.  On  the  circum- 
stantial phrase,  with  no  water  in  it,  which  is  clearly  a  gloss,  see 
the  critical  notes. — 12.  The  writer  gives  the  exiles,  or  some  of 
them,  the  credit  of  having  an  interest  in  their  o\\ti  country  and 
a  readiness  to  return  to  it  under  favourable  conditions.  He  be- 
lieves that  the  time  is  ripe  for  such  a  movement,  and  therefore, 
according  to  the  original  reading,  represents  Yahweh,  not  as 
inviting  these  exiles  to  return,  but  as  promising  that  the,  not 
merely  hopeful,  but  expectant,  prisoners  shall  return.  The  Masso- 
retic  text,  as  generally  rendered,  directs  them  to  return  to  the  fort- 
ress. There  are,  however,  metrical  reasons,  which  will  be  ex- 
plained in  the  critical  notes,  for  susjjecting  the  correctness  of  this 
reading.  Moreover,  it  is  unintelligible.  Sion  is  here  personified. 
It  is  therefore  inconsistent,  in  a  speech  addressed  to  her,  to  repre- 
sent her  exiles  as  returning  to  a  fortress.  These  difficulties  can 
best  be  avoided  by  rejecting  the  troublesome  phrase,  since,  whether 

*  So  AE.,  Ra..  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Burger,  Hd..  Koh.,  Ke.,  Brd.,  Wri.,  Or.,  Kui., 
el  al. 

t  So  Du.,  Th€ol.;  Now.,  Marti. 


9"-"  279 

rightly  or  wrongly  translated,  it  evidently  has  no  place  in  this  con- 
nection. At  the  same  time  it  is  necessary  to  omit  certain  other 
words  with  which  the  measure  has  been  overloaded.  The  coup- 
let of  which  the  verse  originally  consisted  will  then  read, 

Tlie  expectant  prisoners  shall  return; 
Twofold  will  I  restore  to  thee. 

The  recompense  here  promised  includes  not  merely  a  great  increase 
in  population,  like  that  predicted  in  Is.  54^^-,  but  an  abundance 
of  everything  that  produces  genuine  prosperity  and  happiness;  all 
this,  according  to  the  gloss  wrongly  rendered  to  the  fortress,  will  be 
given  in  exchange /or  trouble,  the  suffering  of  the  past.  On  this 
gloss  and  the  parenthetical  clause,  this  day  also  I  declare,  see  Is. 
61^. — 13.  This  will  be  the  result.  There  will  be  opposition  to  its 
achievement,  but  Yahweh  will  triumph,  using  as  his  instrument  the 
people  he  has  chosen.  Note,  now,  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  dis- 
course as  compared  with  w.  ^  ^■.  /  will  bend  me  Jtidah,  use  them 
as  a  bow,  he  says,  and  this  how  will  I  set,  lit.,  Jill,  as  with  an  arrow, 
with  Ephraim.  The  long-sundered  tribes  \vill  be  united  in  a  single 
weapon.  Cf.  Is.  ii^^^-.  In  the  latter  half  of  the  verse,  which 
should  form  a  second  couplet,  the  same  idea  is  repeated  with  varia- 
tions. In  the  first  place,  the  speaker,  Yahweh,  resumes  the  form 
of  direct  address,  the  one  addressed  being  Sion.  In  the  Masso- 
retic  text  Greece  (Yawan),  also,  is  in  the  vocative,  but  this  is 
certainly  an  error.  Indeed,  the  whole  clause  to  which  the  name 
belongs  must  for  metrical  reasons  be  pronounced  an  interpola- 
tion.   Thus  emended  the  second  couplet  reads, 

I  will  arouse  thy  sons,  Sion, 

And  I  will  make  thee  like  the  sword  of  a  mighty  man. 

The  mention  of  Greece  in  this  connection,  even  in  a  gloss,  is  not 
without  significance,  for  it  doubtless  embodies  the  authorised 
Jewish  interpretation  of  an  early  date.  Jerome  says  that  in  his 
time  the  Jews  interpreted  it  as  a  reference  "to  the  times  of  the 
Maccabees,  who  conquered  the  Macedonians,  and,  after  a  space 
of  three  years  and  six  months,  cleansed  the  temple  defiled  by  idol- 
atry"; and  Rashi  in  his  paraphrase  makes  Yahweh  say,  "After 


28o  ZECHARIAH 

Antiochus  takes  the  kingdom  from  the  hand  of  the  king  of  Persia, 
and  they  ill-treat  you,  I  will  bend  Judah,  that  they  may  be  to  me 
like  a  war  bow,  and  they  shall  make  war  against  Antiochus  in  the 
days  of  the  Hasmoneans."  It  must,  however,  be  remembered,  that 
this  gloss  is  earlier  than  the  Greek  Version,  and  that  when  it  was 
inserted  Egypt  as  well  as  Syria  was  a  Greek  kingdom. 

14.  In  the  midst  of  the  conflict  Yahweh  will  appear  in  person. 
Here,  as  in  other  places  in  the  Old  Testament,  he  is  represented  as 
coming  in  a  storm.  Cf.  especially  Na.  i^  Ps.  i8*/^  ^-  2(f^-.  This 
being  the  case,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  writer  intended  to  say 
that  Yahweh  would  appear  above  them  than  on  their  account,  for 
their  defence.  From  his  cloud  chariot  his  arrow  shall  go  forth  as 
lightning.  IJCJ.  Hb.  3"  Ps.  18^^"  77IV"  j^^e^  ^^^  Meanwhile, 
as  earthly'warriors  blow  the  trumpet  (Ju.  7^*  ^■)  he  will  send  forth 
dreadful  blasts  of  thunder  to  terrify  his  and  his  people's  enemies 
/(Ps.  18"/"  29^*^)  as  he  comes  in  the  tempests  of  the  South.  The 
original  abode  of  Yahweh  was  in  the  South;  hence  the  poets  repre- 
sent him  as  coming  from  that  direction.  Cf.  Ju.  5*  Dt.  33"  Hb.  3^; 
also  Ex.  3'^  I  K.  19*,  etc. — ^15.  Yahweh  of  Hosts,  the  God  of 
battles,  will  be  present,  not  only  to  frighten  and  destroy  the  enemy, 
but  to  protect,  as  with  a  shield,*  his  people,  so  that  missiles  hurled 
at  them  will  fall  harmless  at  their  feet,  and  they  shall  trample  on 
sling-stones,  like  leviathan  turn  them  into  "stubble."  Cf.  Jb. 
^  j2o/28.  ^jgQ  jg  ^^i7_  Thus  protected,  they  will  riot  in  slaughter,  or, 
in  the  figurative  language  of  the  (corrected)  text,  drink  blood  like 
wine,  and  be  filled,  drenched,  with  it  Hke  the  corners  of  an  allar. 
The  latter  figure  is  an  aIlu.sion  to  the  custom  of  sprinkling  more  or 
less  of  the  blood  of  sacrifices  upon  the  altar.  Cf.  Ex.  24*  Lv.  i^ 
etc.  This  was  done,  according  to  tradition,  by  dashing  the  blood 
from  the  bowl  in  which  it  had  been  caught  against  two  opposite 
corners  in  such  a  way  that  it  would  spatter  the  adjacent  .sides.  The 
thought  seems  to  be  that,  just  as  the  altar  dripped  with  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifices,  so  the.se  warriors,  with  the  help  of  Yahweh,  will 
drench  themselves  in  the  blood  of  their  enemies.  Cf.  Is.  i**  Ez. 
9^  etc.  Some  one  who  took  the  ierm  fill  too  literally  has  added  a 
second  simile,  like  a  bowl,  that  is,  one  of  the  large  vessels  in  which 

*  CI.  Gn.  15I  Ps.  i8V!.  si/30,  etc. 


9"-"  28i 

the  blood  of  slaughtered  animals  was  caught.  Cf.  Am.  6®;  DB.^ 
a.rt^,Basofi. 

is^Q.  This  wild  and  bloody  picture,  which  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  by  ,Ez^  ^9^^  *^-,  warrants  one  in  expecting  a  conclu- 
sion equally  thrilling  and  terrible.  Cf.  Am.  2^  ^■.  This  expecta- 
tion is  not  reahsed.  Suddenly  the  stlh  of  peace  bursts  forth,  the 
traces  of  the  recent  struggle  are  effaced  and  the  scene  becomes 
wholly  idyllic.  The  beauty  of  the  picture,  as  the  writer  conceived 
it,  is  marred  by  the  changes  that  have  been  made  in  the  text,  and 
the  occidental  reader  is  further  prevented  from  appreciating  it  by 
his  unfamiliarity  with  oriental  scenery.  The  first  two  lines,  with 
the  necessary  emendations,  the  omission  of  the  phrase  in  that  day 
and  the  restoration  of  the  verb  feed,  read. 

Thus  will  Yahweh  their  God  save  them. 
Like  a  flock  ivill  he  feed  his  people. 

The  remaining  lines  of  the  verse  are  usually  rendered  and  inter- 
preted as  a  second  and  independent  simile.  Thus  AV.  has  the 
stones  of  a  crown  lifted  up  as  an  ensign  above  his  land,  which  was  so 
inconsistent  and  unintelligible  that  the  Revisers  substituted  the 
simpler  rendering,  the  stones  of  a  crown  lifted  on  high  over  his  land, 
at  the  same  time  placing  in  the  margin,  as  an  alternate  for  lifted 
on  high,  the  reading  shimmering  upon.  Recent  critics,  failing  to 
find,  even  in  the  latter,  anything  to  connect  this  comparison  with 
the  preceding,  and  ignoring  metrical  considerations,  incline,  with 
Wellhausen,  to  reject  the  whole  clause,  with  the  exception  of  the 
words  on  his  soil.  If  they  had  ever  seen  one  of  the  little  plains  of 
Palestine  in  the  spring,  dotted  with  sheep,  white  and  brown,  gra- 
zing under  a  brilliant  oriental  sun,  they  could  understand  why  the 
writer,  after  comparing  his  people  to  a  flock,  added,  as  he  seems 
to  have  done, 

Like  stones  for  a  crown  shall  they  be. 
Glittering  on  his  soil. 

— 17.  The  prophecy  as  originally  written  closed  with  v.  ^°.  One 
feels,  as  one  reads  it,  that  it  should  end  there.  This  verse,  there- 
fore, at  once  strikes  the  critical  reader  as  superfluous.     On  exam- 


282  ZECHARIAH 

ining  it  he  finds  that  both  in  form  and  content  it  is  inconsistent  with 
those  that  precede.  In  the  first  place,  it  contains  only  three  lines, 
while  all  the  other  verses  have  four.  Then,  too,  the  author  of  it 
is  of  a  different  mind  from  his  predecessor.  To  him  the  ideal  life 
is  not  that  of  the  shepherd,  but  that  of  the  tiller  of  the  soil,  and  the 
ideal  condition  that  when  grain  causeth  youths,  and  must  causeth 
maidens,  to  flourish.  Not  that  the  grain  is  for  the  young  men  and 
the  must,  when  fermented,  for  the  young  women,  but  that  both  in 
abundance  are  required  by  an  increasing  population.  On  the 
fruitfulness  of  the  Palestine  of  the  coming  age,  see  Is.  4"  30"^  ^-  Ez. 
34=^°  Am.  9"  Ps.  72^^  etc. 

The  structure  of  vv.  "•''  is  not  so  regular  as  that  of  w.  '■"',  but  there  is 
no  difSculty  in  perceiving  that  the  tristich  has  given  place  to  the  tetra- 
stich, and  that  there  are  five  such  divisions  more  or  less  distorted  by  er- 
rors and  glosses  in  this  prophecy,  the  first  and  the  last  having  suffered 
most  severely.  In  iB  the  section  to  which  these  verses  belong  begins 
with  V. '  and  closes  with  lo^;  but  vv. '  '•  are  in  a  different  measure  and 
10'-"  are  needed  to  prepare  the  way  for  what  follows. — 11.  dj]  The 
person  here  addressed  is  the  same  as  in  v.  '.  The  particle,  therefore, 
applies  not  so  much  to  the  subject  as  to  the  thought  of  the  entire  sen- 
tence. Hence,  it  is  properly  rendered  also  in  connection  with  the  vb. 
Cf.  Ges.  ^ '".  If  the  prophecy  that  begins  at  this  point  is  later  than  w.  '-'"j 
the  particle  is  doubly  appropriate. — hn]  Rib.  accuses  the  Jews  of  hav- 
ing tampered  with  the  te.xt  of  this  verse,  dropping  a  n  from  the  pro- 
noun and  changing  the  sf .  of  inna  and  -fT'DN  from  the  masc.  to  the  fern, 
gender;  but,  since  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that,  as  has  just  been  ob- 
served, the  writer  had  Sion  in  mind,  and  not  its  future  king,  the  charge 
must  be  dismissed.  The  pronoun  is  an  independent  subject  anticipat- 
ing the  just-mentioned  sf.  Cf.  Gn.  9';  Ges.  ^  i"  cm  (a)._a-,3]  The 
prep,  has  a  causal  significance,  as  in  Gn.  iS^s  Dt.  24'8.  Cf.  BDB.,  art. 
a,  iii,  5.— inna]  (K^Q  om.  the  sf.,  (S>^^  H  &  01  follow  iK.  The  sf.  is 
an  obj.  gen.,  since  only  on  this  interpretation  can  there  be  found  in  the 
covenant  in  question  a  motive  for  divine  action.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'^s-  '  <". 
— ''nnSr]  <&  V  ^,  misled  by  pn,  have  the  2  sg.  masc,  but  JH  is  sup- 
ported by  the  context.  Cy.  3>U'N,  V. '2.  On  the  tense,  the  pf.  denoting  the 
imminence  of  the  given  act,  see  Ges.  ^ '*•• '  <"'. — 13  o^n  pn]  Clearly  a  gloss, 
(i)  It  disturbs  the  measure.  (2)  It  adds  a  thought  unnatural  in  this  con- 
nection. (3)  It  is  easily  explained  as  a  reminiscence  of  Gn.  37^^  or  Je.  38', 
probably,  since  the  Jews  interpreted  in  as  meaning  Egypt,  the  former. 
It  is  merely  an  example  of  misapplied  rabbinical  learning. — 12.  i3ir] 
Four  Kenn.  mss.  have  wr,  from  ar',  doubtless  the  reading  from  which 


9"-''  283 

C5  got  KaB-rjcreade  and  &  Q.SZ.  This  reading,  however,  does  not  suit  the 
context,  which  requires  a  form  of  aic';  not,  indeed,  the  imv.  of  the  text, 
although  it  is  supported  by  B  QI,  but  ms''',  or  better, — for  this  requires 
merely  the  transposition  of  the  first  two  letters  of  the  present  text, — lach. 
So  Marti. — jnxa'?]  Here  only.  Whether  the  first  word  of  this  verse  be 
an  imv.  or  a  pf.  with  1,  it  requires,  to  complete  it,  the  third  and  the 
fourth,  and  these  three  make  a  line  corresponding  to  the  two  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  In  other  words,  jnxaS  is  superfluous,  at  least  in  this  con- 
nection. This  being  the  case,  there  are  two  ways  of  disposing  of  it, 
either  to  transfer  it  to  the  next  line  or  to  remove  it  entirely.  But  the  first 
method  is  impracticable,  because  the  next  line  is  already  much  too  long. 
There  seems,  therefore,  nothing  to  do  but  pronounce  it  a  gloss;  unless  it 
be  to  find  an  explanation  for  it.  The  following  is  suggested:  In  Ps.  9 
and  ID  there  occurs  the  word  ni^a  in  the  sense  of  trouble.  It  is  certainly 
possible  that  jns3  is  a  mistake  for  this  word,  or  an  Aramaic  form  of  it, 
that  jnxaS  was  first  a  marginal  gloss  to  'ji  njrs,  and  that  it  was  inserted 
where  it  now  stands  by  a  careless  copyist. — iijo  orn  dj]  These  words 
also  must  be  of  a  secondary  character,  (i)  They  disturb  the  metrical 
scheme  of  the  original  author.  (2)  They  are  parenthetical  and  explan- 
atory. (3)  They  seem  to  have  been  intended  to  recall  Is.  61''.  The 
subject  of  i^JO,  the  pron.  of  the  first  person,  is  to  be  supplied.  Cf. 
Ges.^i>«- 5  (o  R.3;  B6.^'3"-4-E;  Ko.  ^'324n,_i3.  pc-p]  xhe  Vrss.  con- 
nect this  word  with  the  first  line.  So  also  Theod.  Mops.,  Lu.,  Hi.,  Ew., 
Burger,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Klie.,  Or.,  We.,  Now.,  et  al.  The  measure  and  the 
accentuation,  however,  require  that  it  be  attached  to  what  follows.  So  Jer., 
Ra.,  Marck,  Dru.,  New.,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Ort.,  Hd.,  Brd.,  Pu.,  Lowe, 
Marti,  el  al.  The  objection  by  Now.,  that  if  it  were  the  object  of  ^rsSis 
it  would  have  the  art.,  ignores  the  fact  that  the  art.  is  repeatedly  omitted 
in  this  prophecy  where  the  prose  idiom  would  require  it.  Cf.  iod,  v.  "; 
inj,  V.  ";  jiSp,  V.  '5;  n^TD,  v. ''.  The  recognition  of  the  Massoretic  punc- 
tuation carries  with  it  the  rejection  of  various  interpretations  for  the  words 
that  follow,  for  it  is  clear  that,  if  it  belongs  to  the  second  line,  it  must 
be  the  object  of  ^ns'i'n  while  DnsN  can  only  be  an  ace.  of  that  with  which 
the  object  is  filled.  Cf.  Ges.^"'-  <•  R-  ■•  «), — ••nmip]  This  vb.,  in  Po., 
most  frequently  has  the  meaning  arouse,  but  it  is  also  used  in  the  sense  of 
brandish,  and  Wright  so  renders  it  in  this  instance.  Now.  objects,  but 
his  points  are  not  well  taken.  In  the  first  place,  the  word,  when  used  in 
the  latter  sense,  is  not  always  followed  by  n^jn.  See  Is.  10",  where  the 
object  is  tait:',  a  scourge.  It  is  therefore  not  necessary  to  supply  n'jn  in 
this  instance  and  thus  "put  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  two  mutually 
exclusive  figures  ";  but,  just  as  in  the  immediately  preceding  couplet  the 
weapon  which  is  the  object  of  comparison  in  the  first  must  be  supplied 
from  the  second  line,  so  here  as  a  sword  may  be  borrowed,  to  complete 
the  thought,  from  the  parallel  clause.  While,  therefore,  it  may  be  best, 
as  a  concession  to  occidental  taste,  to  render  the  vb.  in  question  arouse,  it 


284  ZECHARTAH 

is  more  than  probable  that  the  author  really  thought  of  Yahweh  as 
brandishing  his  people  against  their  enemies.  Cf.  Ez.  32'",  where  it  is 
possible  that  -£3DV3  should  be  emended  to  nniya. — ]v  y:3  Sj;]  As  has 
already  been  intimated,  the  words  from  in-ni;;i  onward  evidently  con- 
tain a  parallelism.  When,  however,  an  attempt  is  made  to  arrange  them 
symmetrically  they  refuse  to  be  so  assorted.  Indeed,  when  they  are  di- 
vided according  to  the  sense,  even  if,  with  (6  Aq.  S,  y:2-  be  changed  to 
>j3,  the  first  line  has  nearly  twice  the  length  of  the  second.  Marti  at- 
tempts to  correct  this  discrepancy  by  omitting  both  jvx  and  yi^-.  So 
Kit.  This  is  only  partially  satisfactory,  since,  by  the  removal  of  p's,  the 
sf.  of  TJ3'  loses  its  antecedent  and  becomes  less  easily  intelligible.  If, 
however,  this  name  is  retained,  it  completes  the  first  line,  and  the  only 
way  to  restore  the  symmetry  of  the  couplet  is  to  drop  ]v  ^'J^  Sy,  or,  as 
Marti  and  others  read  it,  ]v  "ija  V>\  So  van  H. — i\ncB'i]  One  would 
expect  O'lPOt'i.  If  the  present  reading  is  retained,  it  must  be  explained 
as  a  case  of  attraction. 

14 .  The  metrical  form  is  here  very  regular,  but  there  is  one  word  too 
many  in  the  third  line.  Omit,  therefore,  either  ^nsi  or  the  ^^^i^  follow- 
ing, preferably,  with  Marti,  the  former.  Cf.  v.  ". — 15.  The  text  of  this 
verse  is  not  in  so  good  condition.  In  the  first  place,  Pixax,  which  occurs 
only  once  (lo^)  elsewhere  in  chs.  9-1 1,  and  there  as  an  interpolation, 
should  be  cancelled. — iSdni]  If  the  line  now  beginning  with  this  word 
were  coupled  with  the  next  one,  the  thought  of  eating  would  be  in  place, 
and  it  would  be  worth  while  to  attempt  to  emend  the  words  that  follow 
to  bring  them  into  harmony  with  it.  Thus,  e.  g.,  for  vS""  ''J3N  K031  one 
might  suggest  on^a^'X  nrao.  Since,  however,  the  line  forms  a  couplet 
with  the  one  that  precedes,  and  makes  complete  sense  without  iSdni, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that,  just  as  in  Is.  21^  some  one  has  supplied  the 
vbs.  for  eating  and  drinking  after  a  description  of  the  preparation  of  a 
table,  so  here  a  scribe  with  more  zeal  for  reality  than  taste  for  poetry  has 
supplied  1S3X1  to  correspond  to  the  inri  of  the  next  line.  The  alterna- 
tive to  this  method  of  disposing  of  the  word  is,  with  Klostermann,  to 
change  it  to  iS^m.  So  Kui.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  GASm.,  Kit. — 'nN 
j?S|i]  These  words  are  perfectly  intelligible  after  vjooi,  without  i^3S\ 
It  is  therefore  unnecessary  to  resort  to  further  emendation  in  this  line. 
Fliigge's  suggestion,  i'':'p  ^ja  =  ]v  <J3,  too  readily  accepted  by  We.  and 
others,  must  certainly  be  rejected  if  the  p>  ^ja  Sy  of  v.  "  is  ungenuine. — 
inni]  This  is  the  reading  preferred  by  Baer  and  supported  by  20  Kenn. 
and  16  de  R.  mss.,  but  the  great  majority  of  the  mss.  omit  the  connective, 
and  so,  apparently,  did  those  from  which  05  and  &  were  made.  It  is 
more  than  probable,  however,  that  both  are  incorrect,  and  that  the  key 
to  the  original  reading  is  found  in  the  rd  alfui  avrdv  of  <8^"^-  ••  <^-  i*  AQri-_ 
Not  that  nm  was  indubitably  the  original  reading,  as  Houb.  and  the 
later  critics  maintain.  All  these  seem  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that 
the  sf.  of  DC1,  if  it  were  substituted  for  icn  or  icni,  would  have  no  ante- 


9"-^'  285 

cedent,  unless,  like  that  of  on^Sy,  it  referred  to  the  Jews,  which  is  hardly 
possible.  If,  therefore,  the  text,  or  texts,  on  which  the  Greek  mss.  cited 
were  based  had  om,  they  should  have  pronounced  it  D!?i  =  didi,  and 
rendered  it  simply  afju-a,  or,  after  the  Heb.  idiom,  which  they  sometimes 
followed,  atfiara,  without  airQv.  This  is  a  bold  and  cruel  figure,  but  the 
next  line  warrants  one  in  believing  that  it  expresses  the  thought  of  the 
author. — The  last  line  also  is  overloaded.  The  testimony  of  (5  is  to 
the  effect  that  n^ta  is  the  word  that  should  be  omitted,  but,  since  the 
translators  evidently  misunderstood  the  passage,  their  evidence  is  not 
convincing.  Moreover,  the  fact  that,  although  either  could  be  con- 
strued with  nam  .rr'ita  presents  a  more  natural  and  impressive  picture, 
indicates  that  it  is  original  and  that  therefore  pirna  is  an  interpolation. 
So  Marti,  Kit. 

16.  oy^rini]  The  sf.  is  superfluous  in  the  present  condition  of  the  text, 
and  is  actually  omitted  by  Kenn.  30;  but  see  below. — DninS^J  Here  again 
it  is  necessary  to  choose  between  two  Greek  readings,  for  although  '^^ 
have  this  word,  in  ^Qr  jt  is  wanting.  The  former  probably  represents 
the  original  text.  It  certainly  completes  the  line  more  satisfactorily  than 
Ninn  0V3.  If,  however,  the  former  is  retained,  the  latter  must  be  sac- 
rificed to  the  requirements  of  the  measure.  So  Marti,  Kit. — The  first 
line  having  been  restored,  it  is  necessary  to  find  a  mate  for  it.  This  is 
fortunately  not  a  very  diflScult  task.  First,  if  DjJ^rim  is  correct,  there 
must  have  been  another  vb.  to  correspond  to  it.  Moreover,  it  must  have 
been  one  of  which  Yahweh  was  the  subject  and  with  which  the  simile 
like  a  flock  could  appropriately  be  employed.  These  requirements  are 
met  by  nyi,  and  We.  is  no  doubt  correct  in  inserting  the  impf.  of  this 
word,  thus  producing  a  second  line,  icy  n;?i>  jnxo,  corresponding  to  the 
one  already  discovered.  He  is  not  so  happy  in  his  rejection  of  the  latter 
half  of  this  verse,  for,  since  v.  "  is  in  a  different  measure,  there  must  be 
found  here  two  lines  to  complete  the  closing  stanza.  This  can  be  done 
by  reading,  with  We.,  •'jasofor  iJ3S  ^3  and  inserting  after  nu  the  pron. 
ncn,  the  same  being  necessary  to  complete  the  sense  and  give  the  first  line 
the  required  length.  On  the  appropriateness  of  the  simile  thus  pro- 
duced, see  the  comments.  Cf.  the  radical  and  unrhythmical  revision, — 
<DJ?  for  iDy  ,"ixj  nax  for  nrj  pN  and  inniN  for  mnN, — proposed  by  van 
H.,  who  claims  that  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  from  rxsD  onward,  should 
change  places  with  10'. — 17 .  Two  reasons  for  regarding  this  verse  as  an 
addition  to  the  original  text  have  already  been  given  in  the  comments. 
They  cannot  be  met  by  adopting  for  the  latter  half  Marti's  reading, 
viz.,  nj  i3ir  rnini  pn,  for,  although  this  line  would  be  of  about  the 
proper  length,  it  would  still  make  discord  with  the  context.  Moreover, 
if,  as  above  claimed,  the  preceding  couplet  is  genuine,  this  verse,  whether 
a  distich  or  a  tristich,  falls  outside  the  scheme  of  the  author. — laita,  vc] 
We.  rds.  n3iD,  r\-'D\  the  antecedent  of  the  sf .  being  hdin. 


286  ZECHARIAH 


c.    The  plan  of  restoration  (lo^-ii^). 

The  prophet  in  a  word  points  out  the  cause  of  past  misfortunes, 
then  describes  the  means  by  which  Yahweh  purposes  to  restore  his 
people  to  their  country.  He  will  give  them  strength  and  courage 
to  resist  and  overcome  their  oppressors,  and  finally  gather  them 
from  the  remotest  regions  to  which  they  have  been  banished.  The 
prophecy  closes  with  a  lament  for  the  powers  that  must  perish  in 
the  conflict. 

1.  The  discourse  opens  with  a  command.  This  command,  how- 
ever, is  not  addressed  to  any  particular  person  or  persons.  Like 
certain  questions  with  which  the  Hebrew  prophets  sometimes  en- 
livened their  utterances,  it  is  merely  a  rhetorical  device  for  bring- 
ing a  truth  more  forcibly  to  the  attention  of  those  to  whom  it  is 
addressed.  In  Je.  14^^  the  doctrine  here  taught  is  actually  put 
into  the  form  of  a  rhetorical  question,  "Are  there  among  the  non- 
entities of  the  nations  (any)  that  can  cause  rain"?  CJ.  also 
Jb.  38^  ^■.  When,  therefore,  the  writer  here  says,  Ask  of  Yahweh 
rain,  it  is  as  if  he  had  said  in  so  many  words,  Yahweh  sendeih  rain. 
This  he  himself  at  once  makes  clear  by  adopting  the  declarative 
form  for  the  parallel  clause,  Yahweh  causeth  lightnings.  The 
lightnings  are  here  not,  as  in  i",  weapons  of  the  Almighty,  but  the 
accompaniment  of  welcome  showers.  Cf.  Je.  10"  Ps.  135'  Jb. 
2g25  ^325  fif.^  gj(,  jj^  |.j^g  second  passage  cited  from  Job  this  thought 
is  developed  poetically.  There  Yahweh  is  described  as  cleaving  a 
channel  for  the  rain  and  a  way  for  the  lightning,  "Causing  rain  on 
a  land  where  there  is  no  man,  On  a  desert  with  no  men  in  it." 
The  next  couplet,  "Satisfying  waste  and  desolate  ground.  And 
causing  the  thirsty  soil  to  put  forth  verdure,"  is  in  the  same  key. 
This  author  is  more  prosaic,  or,  perhaps,  has  a  more  practical  end 
in  view,  namely,  to  show  from  whom  all  blessings  flow.  He  there- 
fore adds,  yea,  the  rain-shower  he  giveth,  not  to  you,  as  some,  fol- 
lowing the  Syriac  Version,  would  read,  but  to  them,  that  is,  to  men, 
and,  as  the  effect  of  such  abundant  moisture,  to  each  herbage  in  the 
field,  that  is,  in  his  field.  Cf.  Je.  5'  Ps.  104^'^-  147'  Jb.  5'°.— 2. 
If  the  teaching  of  v.  Ms  a  general  truth,  it  was  as  true  generations 


io*-ii'  287 

before  as  it  was  when  these  words  were  written.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  was  clearly  taught,  in  one  form  or  another,  by  the  earliest  of 
the  writing  prophets.  Cj.  Am.  4'  ^-  Ho.  2^,  etc.  The  author  of 
this  prophecy  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  fact.  Indeed,  he 
now  proceeds,  as  if  v.  *,  like  7^  ^-jWere  a  quotation  from  "the  former 
prophets,"  and  he  had  added  Ho.  2^,  "Their  mother  played  the 
harlot;  for  she  said,  I  \vill  go  after  my  lovers  that  give  me  my  bread 
and  my  water,  my  wool  and  my  flax,  my  oil  and  my  drink."  His 
next  words  are,  hut  the  terapJiim  spake  wickedness,  and  the  diviners 
saw  falsehood.  The  teraphim  were  idols.  This  is  clear  from  Gn. 
31^°,  where  Laban  calls  those  stolen  by  Rachel  his  "gods."  They 
were,  therefore,  probably  made  in  the  semblance  of  human  beings.* 
They  were  kept  at  shrines  (Ju.  17^  18'*  ^•),  but  they  were  also  found 
in  private  houses.f  Here,  as  in  Ez.  21^"'-^  they  are  among  the 
instruments  of  the  di\'iners,  a  class  of  persons  who  made  a  busi- 
ness of  securing  by  various,  at  this  time  illicit,  methods  supposed 
information  for  those  who  consulted  them. J  They  are  all  re- 
pudiated by  the  great  prophets,  but  some  of  them  were  once  con- 
sidered perfectly  legitimate. §  Here  the  diviners  are  represented 
as  clothing  their  falsehoods  in  the  form  of  prophetic  utterances. 
This  idea  is  further  developed,  but  the  change  in  the  tenses,  and 
the  redundancy  of  the  tw^o  clauses  devoted  to  it,  indicate  that 
they  are  from  a  later  pen.  On  the  other  hand,  the  latter  half  of 
the  verse,  which  Marti  and  others  would  omit,  being  a  natural 
conclusion  to  the  preceding  Hne  of  thought  as  above  interpreted, 
must  be  retained.  It  describes  the  result  of  turning  from  Yah- 
weh,  the  real  source  of  all  blessings,  to  the  devices  of  moimte- 
banks.  Therefore,  says  the  prophet,  recalling  the  overthrow,  not 
of  Ephraim  only,  but  of  both  the  Hebrew  kingdoms,  they  were 
scattered,  suddenly  and  violently  dispersed,  like  a  flock  caught  in 
a  tempest.  See  v.  ^;  also  7"  and  Ho.  13^,  in  both  of  which  the 
verb  is  the  one  that  seems  originally  to  have  been  used  in  this 

*  The  same  inference  has  been  drawn  from  i  S.  ip'-'^-;  but  unfairl}',  for  in  the  original  the 
pronouns  which  in  EV.  make  the  teraphim  appear  a  single  figure  are  conspicuous  by  their 
absence,  "at  the  head  thereof"  meaning  at  the  head  of  the  bed. 

t  C/.  Gn.  3i3o  I  S.  1913. 

X  On  the  different  forms  of  divination,  see  Dt.  jS'"  '•;  EB.,  art.  Divination. 

§  C/.  I  S.  i42«  ff-  i<^\  etc 


288  ZECHARIAH 

passage.  This,  however,  was  but  the  beginning  of  a  long  tale 
of  sorrows.  Thereafter,  in  the  words  of  Hosea  (3^),  they  abode 
"many  days  without  king,  and  without  prince,  and  without 
sacrifice."  Indeed,  when  this  prophecy  was  written,  they  were 
still  without  a  native  head,  and  many  of  them  were  in  voluntary 
or  involuntary  exile.  The  next  line,  therefore,  is  true  to  the  facts, 
whether  it  be  rendered,  they  wandered  because  there  was,  or  better, 
they  wander  because  there  is,  no  shepherd,  that  is,  no  king.  Cf. 
Ez.  34^  '■. 

3.  The  term  shepherd  is  a  familiar  figure  for  a  ruler  in  the  Old 
Testament.*  In  the  preceding  verse  it  denoted  a  Hebrew  king. 
See  also  Je.  23^  ^-  50"  Ez.  34^  ^•.  In  Is.  44^®,  however,  Yahweh  is 
rpprpggn|gH  gg  applying  it  to  Cvrus..and  in  Je.  25^^^-  and  Na.  3'^ 
it  is  used  of  otner  toreign  monarch s.  Here  also,  since,  according  to 
V.  ^,  the  Jews  have  no  king  of  their  own,  foreigners  must  be  in- 
tended. Moreover,  from  what  follows,  it  appears  that  they  are  not 
merely  representatives  of  other  nations,  but  the  actual  rulers  of  the 
Chosen  People.  If,  therefore,  the  passage  belongs  to  the  Greek 
period,  since  the  Jews  during  most  of  that  period  were  subject 
either  to  the  Ptolemies  or  to  the  Seleucids,  the  said  shepherds  must 
be  the  kings  of  Egypt,  or  Syria,  or  both  of  these  empires.  The 
leaders,  lit.,  he-goats,  whom  Yahweh,  in  the  next  line,  threatens  to 
punish  are  the  same  persons  under  another  name.  Cf.  Is.  14°. — 
The  reason  for  this  outburst  of  divine  wrath  is  plain.  It  is  found 
in  the  clause,  for  Yahweh  will  visit  his  flock.  The  sufferings 
of  his  people  have  awakened  a  sympathy  the  expression  of  which 
means  the  overthrow  of  their  oppressors.  Cf.  i*^  ^-  8^.  The  term 
flock  is  followed  by  an  explanatory  phrase,  the  house  of  Judah, 
which  is  clearly  a  mistaken  gloss,  being  inconsistent  with  \'\'.  "  ^■, 
where  Ephraim  is  the  object  of  Yahweh's  favour  as  well  as  Judah. 
Cf.  also  9".  It  is  both  of  these,  now  as  timid  and  helpless  as  sheep, 
that  he  will  make  like  his  lusty  horse,  his  war-horse,  as  described  in 
Jb.  2)9^^  ^'-  The  phrase  in  battle,  which  is  superfluous,  seems  to 
have  been  added  by  some  one  who  feared  that  the  allusion  would 
not  be  understood.     It  speaks  well  for  the  insight  of  the  author, 

♦  The  Assyrian  kings  called  themselves  shepherds.    Thus  Sennacherib  gives  himself  the 
title  re'um  ilipeiu,  wist  shepherd.     KB.,  ii,  80  §. 


lo'-ii'  289 

that,  as  Wellhausen  remarks,  "in  the  Maccabean  war  this  proph- 
ecy was  remarkably  fulfilled." — 4.  The  progress  of  this  revelation 
of  the  purpose  of  Yahweh  is  interrupted  by  a  pronouncement,  in  a 
different  measure,  which,  moreover,  has  no  particular  fitness  in 
this  connection.  It  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  mention 
of  the  shepherds  in  v.  ^.  At  any  rate,  it  has  meaning  on  the  sup- 
position that  these  shepherds  were,  as  has  been  explained,  foreign 
rulers.  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  a  variation  on  Je.  30^''  ^^ 
where  Yahweh  first  promises  to  punish  the  oppressors  of  Jacob, 
and  then  adds,  "then  shall  his  prince  be  of  himself,  and  his  ruler 
shall  go  forth  from  his  midst."  The  scribe  who  penned  the  gloss, 
not  content  with  repeating  the  simple  language  of  Jeremiah,  bor- 
rows a  term  from  Is.  19*^  and  another  from  22^  and  produces  this 
substitute,  From  him,  Judah,  the  corner,  from  him  the  peg,  the 
comer  and  the  peg  both  meaning  the  king  as  the  one  who  bears  the 
responsibilities  of  government.  Cf.  Ju.  20^  i  S.  14^^.  It  is  the 
Messiah,  according  to  the  Targum,  who  is  meant.  From  him,  he 
adds,  is  the  how  for  war.  This  is  usually  interpreted  as  meaning 
military  strength,  but  it  is  possible  that  the  bow  is  here  another 
figure  for  the  king.  Aben  Ezra  explains  "the  bow  of  Israel"  in 
Ho.  i^  as  "the  kingdom  of  Zechariah."  This  interpretation  only 
increases  the  appropriateness  of  the  final  clause, /row  him  shall  go 
forth  all  alike  that  rule. — 5.  This  verse  attaches  itself  naturally  to 
V.  ^  and  continues  the  subject  there  introduced,  the  wonderful 
effect  of  the  presence  of  Yahweh  among  his  people.  There  is  some 
uncertainty  about  the  text,  but  the  general  sense  is  easily  under- 
stood. The  hitherto  peaceful  and  submissive  will  be  more  than  a 
match  for  their  oppressors.  They  shall  be  like  mighty  men,  tramp- 
ling as  it  were  the  mire  of  the  streets  in  battle,  that  is,  trampling  their 
enemies  like  the  mire  of  the  streets.  Cf.  Mi.  7*°.  They  will  not 
quail  even  before  the  dreaded  cavalry  of  the  powers  arrayed  against 
them,  although  they  come  as  "a  great  company  and  a  mighty 
army"  (Ez.  38^^);  but  they  shall  fight,  because  Yahweh  is  with 
them,  and  the  riders  on  horses,  in  which  Egypt  was  strong  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Isaiah,*  shall  be  confounded. 

*  Cf.  Is.  31'.     In  the  battle  of  Raphia  (217  B.C.)  Ptolemy  IV  had  5,000  cavalry.    Cf. 
Polybius,  V,  79. 


290  ZECHARIAH 

6.  Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  generosity  with 
which,  in  ch.  9,  Ephraim  is  admitted  to  a  share  of  the  blessings 
promised  to  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  C/.  9^^.  Here  the  same  dis- 
position manifests  itself,  indicating  that  the  prophecy  as  a  whole  is 
from  the  author  of  the  one  preceding.  In  this  the  thought  is  very 
nearly  that  of  9''"'.  There  Judah  and  Ephraim  are  the  two  parts 
of  a  weapon,  "useless  each  without  the  other";  here  Yahweh 
promises  by  his  aid  to  make  the  northern  tribes  as  strong  and 
effective  in  his  service  as  the  southern.  /  will  make  the  house 
of  Jjidah  mighty,  he  says;  but  he  immediately  adds,  and  the  house 
of  Joseph  will  I  deliver,  or,  in  view  of  the  connection,  make  vic- 
torious.    Cf.  (f. 

The  name  Joseph,  when  used  as  a  collective,  has  more  than  one  significa- 
tion. In  Gn.  49"  ^ •  and  elsewhere  it  includes  only  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh.  It  is  sometimes,  however,  owing  to  the  prominence  of  these  tribes, 
used  to  designate  any  coalition  or  confederation  to  which  they  belonged. 
Thus,  in  Ju.  i-  ff-,  it  includes  only  Manasseh,  Ephraim,  Zcbulon,  Ashcr, 
Naphtali  and  Dan;  but  in  2  S.  19'^  ^-  it  comprehends  also  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin. It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  to  find  it  used,  like  Ephraim  (v.  '), 
sometimes,  but  rarely  (7  t.)  by  the  prophets,  as  a  synonym  for  Israel  in  the 
narrower  sense,  that  is,  for  the  northern  kingdom.  It  is  doubtful  if  it  is  ever 
employed  in  any  larger  signification.     Cf.  EB.,  art.  Joseph  (Tribe). 

The  parallelism  between  the  two  lines  is  unmistakable.  They 
therefore  belong  together;  nor  can  they  be  separated  without  vio- 
lence to  the  thought  that  the  author  intended  to  convey.  This 
being  the  case,  it  is  clear  that  the  period  which  Wellhausen  insert-s 
after  the  first  must  be  replaced  by  a  comma.  The  relation  be- 
tween these  two  lines  and  the  next  is  not  so  close  as  their  connection 
with  each  other,  but  the  natural  inference  is  that,  when  Yahweh 
proceeds  to  say,  /  will  even  restore  them,  he  does  not  mean  Joseph 
alone,*  but  those  of  both  branches  of  the  Hebrew  family  who  were 
wandering  among  the  nations.  Thus,  there  follows  a  revelation 
of  the  divine  mercy  in  its  real  dimensions;  of  its  breadth  in  the  dec- 
laration, /  have  compassion  on  them,  namely,  Joseph  as  well  as 
Judah,  and  of  its  depth  in  the  promise,  they  shall  he  as  if  I  had  not 
rejected  them.  There  is  nothing  in  the  term  reject  to  forbid  such  an 
interpretation,  for  the  overthrow  of  Judah  was  just  as  complete, 

*  So  Mau.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Brd.,  We.,  Now.,  et  al. 


lo-ii''  291 

for  the  time  being,  as  that  of  Israel  and  the  Jews  interpreted  their 
own  misfortunes  precisely  as  they  did  those  of  the  sister  kingdom.* 
All  this  is  poetical  and  significant.  The  remaining  clause,  hav- 
ing neither  of  these  characteristics,  is  doubtless  a  scribal  addition, 
a  reminiscence  of  Is.  41^^.  Marti  calls  it  "a  theological  catch- 
word." Cf.  V.  ^  Gn.  49*^. — 7.  The  interpretation  given  to  v.  ^  is 
favoured  by  the  fact  that  the  writer  now  gives  special  attention  to 
Israel.  Then,  he  says,  shall  Ephraim  be  like  mighty  men,  men  who 
not  only  possess  strength,  but  are  conscious  of  its  possession  and 
delight  in  its  exercise.  Cf.  Ps.  iq"/''.  So  shall  their  hearts  rejoice 
as  from  wine.  Cf.  Ju.  9'^  Ps.  104^^,  etc.  Tlieir  children  is  some- 
times interpreted  as  the  equivalent  of  Ephraim  ;t  but  this  can 
hardly  be  correct,  for,  although  the  author  of  this  prophecy  has  not 
the  originality  of  his  great  predecessors,  it  is  too  much  to  suppose 
that  he  would  repeat  the  same  thought  three  times  in  three  succes- 
sive lines  with  so  sHght  variations.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  take 
the  phrase  in  its  obvious  sense,  thus  making  the  couplet  of  which  it 
is  a  part  express  a  desire  natural  to  a  Hebrew,  and  perfectly  appro- 
priate in  this  connection,  that  later  generations  may  see  in  retro- 
spect the  great  deeds  that  have  been  wrought  through  their  fathers, 
and  their  hearts  exult  in  Yahweh.  Cf.  Ps.  78*  ^-  79^^  102^''/'^,  etc. 
— 8.  It  has  been  noted  as  a  characteristic  of  the  author  of  this 
prophecy  that  he  is  apt  to  be  carried  away  by  his  visions.  The  last 
verse  furnishes  an  example  of  this  peculiarity.  In  it  the  result 
steals  a  march  on  the  process.  The  process,  therefore,  now  comes 
lagging.  Yahweh  goes  back  to  his  promise  in  v.  ^  and  makes  a 
new  start.  I  will  shrill  to  them,  he  explains,  atid  gather  them  ;  sum- 
mon them  by  a  sharp,  clear  signal  such  as  shepherds  use  in  calling 
their  flocks.  Cf.  Ju.  5*"  Is.  5^^  7^^,  They  will  respond  in  such 
numbers  that  they  shall  be  as  many  as  they  ever  have  been.% 
These  two  declarations  are  separated,  in  the  Massoretic  text,  by 
another  "theological  catch- word"  for  which  there  is  neither  room 
nor  occasion. 

*  Cj.  2  K.  i7'9  ff.  Ps.  435  4410/9,  etc.  t  So  We.,  Marti. 

X  Two  other  renderings  have  been  suggested:  they  shall  increase  as  they  increased,  scil.,  in 
Egypt  (Ki.,  et  al.),  and  Ihey  shall  increase  as  they  increase,  i.  e.,  indefinitely  ;  but  if  the  author 
had  intended  to  express  the  former  thought,  he  would  have  contrived  to  make  it  clearer,  and  if 
the  second,  he  would  have  put  the  second  vb.  into  the  impf.  to  denote  future  time. 


292  ZECHARIAH 

9.  The  exact  meaning  of  the  couplet  that  now  follows  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine.  It  is  pretty  plain  that  the  text  has  suffered,  but 
not  so  clear  how  it  should  be  emended.  At  this  point  the  question 
might  arise  whether  it  was  possible  to  repatriate  a  people  on  whom 
the  oft-repeated  threat  to  "disperse  them  among  the  nations  and 
scatter  them  in  the  covmtries"*  had  been  but  too  literally  fulfilled. 
It  will  be  taken  for  granted  that  it  did  present  itself,  and  that 
the  words  here  found  were  intended  to  furnish  an  answer  to  it. 
On  this  hypothesis  the  first  clause  is  most  naturally  rendered, 
Thmigh  I  scattered  them  among  the  nations.  The  second  should 
be  a  corresponding  declaration.  When,  however,  the  rest  of  the 
verse  is  examined,  there  appear  to  be  two  such  clauses,  even  in  Jar 
countries  shall  they  remember  me,  and  they  shall  rear  their  children 
and  they  (the  children)  shall  return,  either  of  which  will  make  sense 
with  the  foregoing,  but  only  one  of  which  can  well  be  original. 
The  choice  between  them  must  depend  on  their  relative  fitness  for 
this  connection.  This  being  the  case,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  latter  is  the  gloss,  having  apparently  been  added  to  adapt  a 
promise  intended  for  the  prophet's  contemporaries  to  the  needs  of 
a  later  generation. — 10.  Thus  far  the  restoration  has  been  pre- 
sented only  in  outline.  It  remains  to  add  the  details  that  give  to  a 
picture  its  vividness  and  effectiveness.  It  is  not  necessary,  how- 
ever, to  multiply  these  particulars.  Hence,  in  the  present  in- 
stance, although  the  preceding  verse  gave  the  impression  that  the 
Hebrews  were  scattered  among  many,  if  not  all  nations,  only  two 
are  now  actually  named  as  contributing  to  the  multitude  of  exiles 
returning  to  their  country.  The  first  of  these  is  Egypt.  I  will 
bring  them  back,  says  Yahweh,/row  the  land  of  Egypt.  The  Egyp- 
tians more  than  once  came  into  hostile  contact  with  the  Hebrews. 
The  most  notable  of  these  instances  are  (i)  the  invasion  of  Pales- 
tine by  Shishak  (I),  as  he  is  called  in  the  Old  Testament,  late  in  the 
tenth,yand  the  defeat  of  Josiah  by  Necho  II  at  Megidd^toward  the 
end  of  the  seventh  century  B.C., J  on  both  of  which  occasions  many 
Hebrews  must  have  been  carried  to  Egypt  as  prisoner^  Others, 
doubtless,  had  gone  there  voluntarily  while  the  two  countries  were 

♦  C/.  Ez.  s'2 ;  also  Lv.  26^  Dt.  4"  28"  Ez.  s'  12'*  '•  20M  22I6,  etc. 

t  I  K.  14»«-;  Petrie.  HE.,  iii,  233  fj.  J  2  K.  23»f-;  Pitrie,  HE.,  iii,  336. 


lo-ii"*  293 

at  peace  with  each  other,  and  especially  when  they  were  in  alli- 
ance against  Assyria  or  Babylonia.  Many  from  the  northern  part 
of  the  country  must  have  taken  refuge  in  Egypt  when  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  was  overthrown.  When  Nebuchadrezzar  finally  crushed 
Judah  the  conquered  fled  thither  in  great  numbers,  the  final  rem- 
nant taking  the  prophet  Jeremiah  with  them.*  These  last  foimd 
refuge  in  Tahpanhes,  the  Greek  Daphna?,  now  Defneh,  just  within 
the  border;  but  there  were  other  colonies  in  various  parts  of  the 
country.f  From  this  time  onward  there  was  always  a  large  and 
growing  Jewish  element  in  Egypt.  It  attained  its  greatest  devel- 
opment and  influence,  as  was  shown  in  the  Introduction,  in  the 
Greek  period,  when  the  Jews  not  only  became  leaders  in  commerce 
and  the  industries,  but  rose  to  the  highest  civil  and  military  posi- 
tions. It  has  also  been  noted,  however,  that  under  Ptolemy  III 
the  condition  of  the  Jews,  especially  in  Palestine,  became  much 
less  fortunate,  and  that  this  is  the  period  to  which  belongs  the 
prophecy  here  recorded.  It  is  not  strange  that  at  such  a  time  some 
one  should  have  been  moved  to  preach  a  new  and  completer  res- 
toration than  his  people  had  hitherto  experienced.  The  prophet 
not  only  expects  to  see  his  countrymen  in  Egypt  brought  home,  but 
he  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the  additional  promise,  from 
Assyria  will  I  gather  them.  At  first  sight  the  mention  of  Assyria 
seems  to  contradict  the  opinion  above  expressed  with  reference  to 
the  date  of  this  prophecy;  but  the  contradiction  is  only  apparent. 
The  name  "Assyria,"  although,  of  course,  it  generally  denotes  the 
great  empire  whose  latest  capital  was  Nineveh,  does  not,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  always  have  this  meaning.  It  is  repeatedly  used  of  the 
powers  which  one  after  another  took  Assyria's  place  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  oriental  world.  Thus,  in  2  K.  23^^,  it  must  be  interpreted 
as  denoting  Babylonia;  for  the  Assyrian  empire  was  overthrown 
before  Necho  II  started  on  his  ill-fated  expedition.  So  also,  ac- 
cording to  Stade,  in  Je.  2^^  Mi.  7^^  La.  5®.  In  the  books  of  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  not  only  Assyria  (Ezr.  (P),  but  Babylonia  (Ezr.  5^^ 
Ne.  13^),  is  used  for  Persia.  These  and  other  less  obvious  ex- 
amples show  that  Assyria  and  Babylonia  were  sometimes  employed 
by  Hebrew  writers  to  designate  the  existing  world-power,  or  its 

*  C}.  2  K.  25=6  Je.  43'  ff-.  t  Cj.  Je.  43'  44'- 


294  ZECHARIAH 

seat,  without  reference  to  their  original  signification.*  This  being 
the  case,  the  reader  is  free  to  conclude  on  other  evidence  that  this 
prophecy  dates  from  the  Greek  period,  and  explain  the  term  As- 
syria in  this  instance  as  meaning  the  empire  of  the  Seleucids.f 
There  were  Hebrews  in  great  numbers  in  this  direction  also,  mostly 
the  descendants  of  those  whom  the  Assyrians  and  the  Babylonians 
had  carried  away  captive.  J  Later  the  Persians  under  Artaxerxes 
III,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  added  their  quota. §  The  prophet 
does  not  try  to  picture  the  meeting  between  this  great  multitude 
and  the  one  from  the  West.  He  might  have  applied  to  it  the  words 
of  Isaiah  (7^^  with  reference  to  another  invasion  from  the  same 
quarters,  "They  shall  come  and  settle,  all  of  them,  in  the  yawning 
water-courses,  and  in  the  clefts  of  the  cliffs,  and  in  all  the  thorn 
trees,  and  in  all  the  pastures."  **  He  has  not  done  so,  but  he  has 
left  evidence  of  realising  that  such  a  gathering  would  tax  the  dimen- 
sions of  Palestine  by  providing  for  an  overflow;  for  this  seems 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  added  words,  a  reminiscence  of  Je.  50'®, 
and  to  the  land  of  Gilead  will  I  bring  them  until,  lit.,  and,  it  shall 
not  suffice  for  them.  Cf.  Jos.  1 7^".  Gilead  is  here  used,  not  strictly, 
to  denote  the  territory  between  Moab  and  Bashan,  that  is,  between 
the  Amon  and  the  Yarmuk  (Dt.  3^"-  *^  Je.  50",  etc.),  but  in  the 
larger  sense  including  Bashan,  that  is,  for  the  entire  region  east  of 
the  Jordan  once  occupied  by  the  Hebrews.  Cf.  Jos.  22^  Ju.  10* 
2o\  etc.  The  Massoretic  text  has  Gilead  and  Lebanon,  but  for 
metrical  and  other  reasons  the  latter  must  be  omitted. 

11.  The  last  verse  supplied  certain  geographical  details  that 
made  for  definiteness.  They  suggest  others  that  increase  its  vivid- 
ness. Thus,  the  mention  of  Egypt  recalls  the  wonderful  works 
that  Yahweh  wrought  in  the  sight  of  the  fathers  "in  the  field  of 
Zoan."  Cf.  Ps.  78**-  ^.  The  author  has  no  more  doubt  than  the 
one  who  wrote  Is.  11^^  ^-  that,  if  necessary,  Yahweh  will  repeat 
these,  or  perform  yet  greater  miracles,  for  the  deUverance  and  res- 
toration of  his  people.     Yea,  he  says,  they  shall  pass  through  the 

*  The  same  usage  appears  in  the  New  Testament,  where  Babylon  means  Rome.     Cj.  Rev, 
14'  16"  17*  tS?-  '"•  3.    So  also,  according  to  many,  i  Pe.  s". 
t  See  also  Is.  ip*"-  27"  Ps.  Sa'/s,  according  to  Stade. 
t  CI.  2  K.  is^s  i7«  i8"3  24"  "•  25". 
§  See  pp.  264  /.  **  CI.  also  Ho.  11"  Mi.  7« 


lo-ii  295 

Egyptian  sea,  that  is,  the  Red  Sea,  as  did  their  fathers  under  Moses. 
A  similar  miracle  will  be  performed  for  the  benefit  of  those  who 
have  to  cross  the  Euphrates.  This  great  river,  when  the  time 
comes,  will  not  merely  be  "divided,"  the  water  being  piled  up  on 
either  hand  "like  a  wall,"  but  all  the  depths  thereof  shall  be  dried 
up*  In  the  Massoretic  text  the  relation  between  the  two  lines 
just  quoted  is  obscured  by  the  intervention  of  another,  which,  how- 
ever, is  so  clearly  a  gloss  borrowed  from  9^  that  it  may  unhesitat- 
ingly be  neglected.  The  nations  named  could  not  be  expected  to 
acc^uiesce  in  the  purpose  of  Yahweh.  Like  the  Pharaoh  of  old, 
blinded  by  their  pride,  they  will  even  presume  to  resist  him.  The 
restoration  of  the  Hebrews,  therefore,  means  their  humiliation,  if 
not  their  destruction.  The  sentence  pronoimced  upon  the  first 
recalls  familiar  utterances  of  earHer  prophets.  The  explanation 
is  that  the  oriental  world-power  through  the  centuries  remained 
so  true  to  its  original  character  that  arraignments  of  it  in  its  vari- 
ous manifestations  naturally  present  the  same  featiires.  This  one 
condenses  the  substance  of  Isaiah's  vivid  description  of  the  fate 
of  Assyria  (10^  ^•)  and  a  successor's  sarcastic  portrayal  of  the  fall 
of  Babylon  (Is.  14^"^-)  into  a  single  sentence.  The  pride  of  As- 
syria, here,  as  in  the  preceding  verse,  Syria,  shall  be  humbled.  In 
the  parallel  line  it  is  predicted  that  the  sceptre  of  Egypt  shall  depart, 
which  is  equivalent  to  saying  that  the  country  will  cease  to  have  an 
independent  government.     Cf.  9^  Gn.  49*". 

12.  The  prophecy  might  have  closed  with  v.  ",  but  does  not, 
for,  as  a  glance  at  ii*'^  will  show,  those  verses  continue  the  same 
subject.  They  are  a  lament  over  the  powers  whose  doom  has  just 
been  pronounced,  which,  of  course,  should  immediately  follow  the 
announcement  of  their  destruction.  This  verse,  therefore,  must 
be  an  interpolation. — 11*.  The  lament  is  highly  figurative,  but 
there  can  be  little  doubt  about  its  interpretation.  The  cedar  is  a 
familiar  figure  for  anything  lofty,  while  the  oak  is  a  symbol  of  great- 
ness and  strength.!  In  Is.  10^  ^"  the  cedar  represents  Assyria. 
Ezekiel  adopts  the  figure  and  in  ch.  3 1  applies  it  in  a  much  more 

*  This  is  only  a  less  direct  exhortation  to  courage  and  fortitude  than  the  words  of  Judas 
Maccabjeus  to  his  men  just  before  the  battle  of  Emmaus,  "Remember  how  our  fathers  were 
delivered  in  the  Red  Sea,  when  Pharaoh  pursued  thera  with  an  army."     i  Mac.  4'. 

t  Cj.  Am.  29  Is.  2",  etc 


296  ZECHARIAH 

elaborate  form  to  Egypt.*  In  the  first  lines  of  this  lament,  Open, 
Lebanon,  thy  doors,  That  the  fire  may  devour  thy  cedars,  the  use  of 
the  plural  for  the  trees  permits,  if  it  does  not  require,  the  reader  to 
suppose  that  both  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  included.  They  will 
disappear,  as  even  these  gigantic  trees  must  when  fire  invades  the 
forest.  Cf.  Is.  9'^/'^  Ps.  83". — 2.  The  next  couplet  immediately 
arouses  suspicion  with  reference  to  its  genuineness.  The  cypress 
(Cupressus  sempervirens),  which  is  still  "found  in  abundance  in 
Lebanon  and  an ti- Lebanon,"  is  repeatedly  mentioned  in  the  Old 
Testament  with  the  cedar;  so  often  that,  in  certain  connections,  its 
appearance  may  be  expected. 

There  is  difference  of  opinion  with  reference  to  the  tree  here  intended.  It 
has  also  been  identified  with  a  variety  of  the  pine  (pm.  halepensis;  Tristram, 
NHB.,  353/.),  and  the  juniper  {Juniperus  excelsa,  DB.,  art.  Fir) .  Neither  of 
these,  however,  seems  so  likely  to  have  been  meant  as  the  cypress,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  (i)  The  word  here  used  is  generally  so  rendered  in  &,  and  of- 
tener  so  than  in  any  other  way  in  <§.  (2)  The  cypress  is  more  valuable 
than  any  of  its  rivals  for  the  purposes  for  which  the  tree  here  named  was  used 
by  the  Hebrews;  viz.,  for  floors  (i  K.  616),  wainscots  (2  Ch.  3^)  and  doors  (i 
K.  6^).  So  Post,  DB.,  art.  Fir.  The  only  alternative  to  the  adoption  of 
this  view,  apparently,  is  to  suppose  that  the  name  here  used.  Ass.  burasu,  was 
sometimes  loosely  applied  to  more  than  one  of  the  trees  above  enumerated. 

Here,  however,  it  is  hardly  in  place,  (i)  The  cypress,  although 
it  is  associated  with  the  cedar,  is  never  in  the  Old  Testament  rep- 
resented as  a  peer  of  the  latter.  It  is  called  the  "choice  cypress" 
and  admired  for  its  foliage  rather  than  for  its  grandeur.  Cf.  Is.  37"^ 
Ez.  31*.  It  ought  not,  therefore,  to  appear  as  the  chief  mourner 
for  its  stately  neighbour,  taking  precedence  of  the  more  stalwart 
oak.  (2)  Indeed,  it  ought  not  to  appear  at  all.  If  the  cedar  had 
been  felled  with  the  axe,  the  woodman  might  have  spared  the  hum- 
bler tree,  but  fire  makes  no  such  distinction.  Cf.  Is.  9"/'*.  It  is 
therefore  an  inconsistency,  after  throwing  open  the  doors  of  Leb- 
anon to  this  destructive  element,  to  call  upon  the  cypress,  not,  be 
it  observed,  the  cypresses,  to  wail  because  the  cedar  hath  fallen. 
The  mourners,  if  there  are  any,  must  be  sought  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  flames.     These  and  other  considerations  warrant  one  in 

*  In  41  Ez.  31'  has  "Lo,  Assyria  a  cedar";  but,  since  the  whole  chapter  is  addressed  to  the 
king  of  Egypt,  and  the  figure  in  its  entirety  is  applied  to  him,  the  other  name  is  doubtless 
a  mistaken  gloss.     So  Toy,  Siegfried,  Kraetzschmar. 


lo-ii'  297 

neglecting  the  line  quoted,  and  with  it  the  next,  that  the  lordly  have 
been  devastated.*  The  omission  of  these  lines  is  an  improvement 
both  from  the  metrical  and  from  the  exegetical  stand-point.  The 
measure  is  improved  because  without  these  lines  vv.  ^"^  fall  nat- 
urally into  two  tetrastichs  corresponding  to  those  of  ch.  10. 
More  important  is  the  light  thrown  on  the  next  two  lines  by  the 
close  connection  mto  which  they  are  now  brought  with  v.  ^  The 
oaks  of  Bashan,  whose  right  it  is,  at  once  come  to  the  front  as 
mourners  because  the  lofty  forest  hath  come  down.  It  is  taken  for 
granted  that  the  fallen  forest  is  that  of  the  cedars  of  Lebanon. 
This  inference  is  unavoidable.  The  only  alternative  is  to  suppose 
that  the  forest  is  that  of  Bashan;  in  other  words,  that  the  oaks  of 
that  region  are  summoned  to  lament  their  own  destruction.  If, 
however,  the  forest  is  that  of  Lebanon,  and  the  trees  in  it  represent 
the  doomed  kingdoms  of  Egypt  and  Syria,  or  their  rulers,  the  oaks 
must  be  other  great  powers  destined  to  survive,  at  least  for  the 
present,  to  witness  the  mighty  act  of  Yahweh.f 

3.  The  stanza  found  in  vv.  ^  ^-  is  complete  in  itself.  It  seems  to 
have  been  inspired  by  the  passage  from  Ezekiel  Just  cited.  There 
follows  another  which  has  its  parallel  in  Je.  25^^-.  It  contains 
two  pictures  or  parables,  in  the  first  of  which  the  kings  whom  Yah- 
weh  has  threatened  to  punish  again  appear  as  shepherds.  Cf  10^. 
Hark!  says  the  prophet,  the  wail  of  the  shepherds,  adding  the  reason 
for  their  grief.  The  Massoretic  text  says  it  touches  their  glory, 
but,  since  Je.  25^^  has  "pasture"  and  this  is  the  word  that  is  re- 
quired to  complete  the  sense,  it  is  probable  that  the  original  was, 
because  their  pasture  hath  been  devastated.  Here,  as  the  Targum 
correctly  teaches,  pasture  is  a  figure  for  the  countries  governed  by 
the  kings  pictured  as  shepherds.  In  the  second  parable  the  kings 
are  represented  as  young  lions.  Hark!  it  says,  the  roar  of  the  young 
lions,  because  the  pride  of  the  Jordan  hath  been  devastated.  The 
Jordan  has  two  valleys,  an  outer  and  an  inner.  The  latter  is 
much  narrower  than  the  former,  and  so  low  that  it  is  sometimes 

*  The  adjective  lordly  is  used  of  the  cedar  also  in  Ez.  172s,  where  EV.  has  "goodly,"  and  in 
Is.  lo*",  where  the  original  reading  was  either  "Lebanon  the  lordly"  or,  as  in  (g,  "Lebanon 
with  its  lordly  ones."     So  Cheyne. 

t  Cj.  Ez.  3i'5  '■;  also  SI,  which  renders  the  last  two  lines.  Wail,  rulers  oj  the  countries,  ]or  your 
strong  realm  hath  been  plundered. 


298  ZECHARIAH 

flooded  by  the  river.  This  narrow,  winding  strip  is  naturally  very 
fertile,  and  therefore  produces  an  almost  impenetrable  mass  of 
vegetation,  the  pride,  luxuriance,  of  the  Jordan,  which  is,  and 
always  has  been,  a  covert  for  wild  beasts.  CJ.  12^;  Tristram, 
NHB.,  10  f.\  GASm."^'  *^*^-.  Among  them  in  ancient  times 
were  lions.  Cf.  Je.  49*°  50^^  It  is  these  beasts,  driven  in  terror 
from  their  lairs  by  fire  or  flood,  and  left  without  a  refuge,  that 
furnish  the  author  with  his  second  illustration.  Cf.  25^^.  No  less 
desperate  shall  he  the  case  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  and  Syria  when 
Yahweh  takes  in  hand  to  punish  them. 

1.  I'^NU']  Bla.,  et  al.,  point  this  as  a  pf.,  but  v.  '  shows  that  the  per- 
sons who  would  then  be  the  subjects  of  the  vb.,  instead  of  appealing 
to  Yahweh,  consulted  the  diviners. — ripSn  n>"3]  A  mistaken  gloss,  un- 
naturally restricting  the  original  thought.  The  author  wished  to 
teach  his  people  where  to  look  for  rain,  not  when  it  was  most  needed. 
It  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  Dt.  11",  which  (6  copies  verbatim. 
The  measure  permits  no  addition. — a''Titn]  Van  H.  ingeniously  sug- 
gests OMMH,  the  beasts. — nam]  Not  necessary,  nu'j  alone  satisfying 
the  requirements  both  of  the  sense  and  the  measure.  Marti,  there- 
fore, omits  it.  See,  however,  Jb.  37%  where  both  words  are  used  in 
the  reverse  order,  also  a  similar  expression  in  Is.  3'2. — an'^]  Marti,  fol- 
lowing &,  rds.  DoS,  overlooking  the  fact  that  the  second  line  is  not  a 
promise,  but  the  statement  of  a  truth,  and  the  third  a  continuation  of 
the  same  thought,  the  construction  being  changed  by  substituting  the 
impf .  for  the  prtc.  on  account  of  the  distance  of  the  second  vb.  from 
mn^,  its  subject.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "••  ^-  ^-  '.—2.  ^3]  Adversative.  Cf.  Mi.  6', 
etc.;  Ges.^'"-  '•  R-. — Diannn]  Here,  if  nowhere  else,  a  numerical  plural. 
Cf.  Ges.  ^'*<-  '  c^'. — vn]  Accented  on  the  penult  to  prevent  the  con- 
junction of  two  accented  syllables. — pcnj'- — nicSm]  Two  reasons  for 
suspecting  the  genuineness  of  these  two  lines  have  been  given  in  the 
comments.  Another  is  that  they  have  no  place  in  the  metrical  scheme 
of  the  author,  a  system  of  tetrastichs. — mnSm]  There  is  difference  of 
opinion  with  reference  to  the  relation  of  this  word  to  those  that  fol- 
low. Many  make  it  the  subj.,  and  xirn  the  obj.,  of  n3i\  So  H  S, 
Dru.,  Rosenm.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Pres.,  Sta.,  Kui.,  Now.,  GASm-.,  et  al.  It  is 
better,  however,  for  several  reasons,  to  make  it  the  object  of  the  vb. 
and  Niu*n  the  gen.  dependent  on  it:  (i)  This  is  the  more  natural  con- 
struction. (2)  It  is  favoured  by  the  fact  that  mu-nhas  the  art.,  while 
nia^ni  has  none.  (3)  The  vbs.  n3i>  and  icnr  naturally  take  a  per- 
sonal subj.  The  majority  of  the  authorities,  therefore,  have  adopted 
this  construction.     So  <&  ft,  New.,  Mau.,  Burger,  Koh.,  Klie.,  Ke., 


lo-ii'  299 

Hd.,  Pu.,  Or.,  Reu.,  Rub.,  We.,  Marti,  et  a/.— isnr]  Kenn.  4  yony, 
according  to  We.  "perhaps  correctly."  The  vb.  Bvsj,  however,  occurs 
only  in  Je.  23'',  and  there  as  a  denominative  apparently  coined  for 
the  occasion.  Besides,  We.  himself  thinks  that  the  present  reading 
also  suits  the  connection. — p  Sy]  Marti,  recognising  the  division  into 
tetrastichs  and  accepting  innj"! — ninSm  as  genuine,  is  obliged  to  omit 
the  rest  of  the  verse  as  an  accretion;  mistakenly,  for  there  are  as 
good  reasons  for  retaining  these  two  lines  as  for  omitting  those  he 
omits,  (i)  They  are  metrically  correct.  (2)  The  tenses  used  corre- 
spond to  those  of  the  first  two  lines  of  the  verse.  (3)  They  complete 
the  thought  with  which  the  writer  began  and  furnish  him  with  a  basis 
for  the  rest  of  his  discourse.  Note  especially  J3  V;'  and  the  catch' 
word  nj?-\.  Although  these  last  lines,  as  a  whole,  are  genuine,  there 
are  two  words  about  which  there  is  room  for  doubt  as  to  their  cor- 
rectness. The  first  is  i>D^  It  excites  suspicion  because,  while  it 
closely  resembles  words  generally  used  in  such  connections,  it  is  itself 
not  perfectly  appropriate.  It  denotes  a  deliberate  departure  from 
one  place  for  another  as  on  a  march  or  journey.  C/.  Nu.  33'^-.  The 
word  required  is  one  that  implies  danger  or  violence.  We.  suggests 
U'j  or  r;y,  from  >i],  wander.  So  also  Now.  This  is  an  improve- 
ment, but  n;"Dj,  from  "i>D,  scatter  (7"),  not  only  suits  the  connection, 
but  furnishes  a  key  to  the  origin  of  the  present  reading. — ij>'']  We. 
would  om.  the  word,  but  the  measure  favours  its  retention.  Marti 
rds.  ijy.i,  citing  (&,  but  koI  iKaK(i6r}a-av  —  iji;''i.  GASm.  rds.  UTL 
This  last,  or,  without  the  connective,  U'f ,  would  suit  the  connection. 
The  same  is  true,  however,  of  M,  which,  so  far  as  the  meaning  of  the 
word  is  concerned,  is  supported  by  the  Vrss.  It  is  interesting  also 
to  note  that  in  Is.  54"  the  vbs.  n>"D  and  riy;  are  associated. — 3.  n-^n] 
The  pf.  with  the  force  of  a  present  tense.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'  '»«■  ^  (").— ipijx] 
This  vb.,  with  Sy,  denotes  hostility,  without  it,  friendliness.  See  the 
next  clause;  also  Je.  23'. — ipa  ^o]  Perhaps  an  error  for  tps'  '3. — At 
this  point  van  H.,  ignoring  the  indications  from  form  and  content  that 
have  been  noted  in  the  Introduction,  inserts  ii>-i'  and  13''. — riiNas] 
Om.  with  Kenn.  17,  although  its  equivalent  appears  in  all  the  Vrss.  So 
Marti,  Kit. — nnin>  no  nx]  An  intrepretative  gloss,  as  prosaic  as  it  is 
unnecessary.  C/.  i' Is.  7"  S''.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.,  Kit.— nsnSsa] 
Perhaps,  as  Marti  conjectures,  a  loan  from  v.  ^. — 4.  The  reasons  for 
rejecting  this  verse  have  been  given  in  the  comments.  Marti  makes 
a  tetrastich  of  it,  but  only  by  disregarding  the  length  of  the  lines. — 
i:dc]  The  antecedent  is  Judah.  &  has  the  pi.  of  the  pron.  here  as 
in  the  last  clause  of  v. '. — nn']  After  a  sg.,  which,  however,  has  a  col- 
lective signification.  Cp.  Marti,  who  would  transfer  this  word  to 
v.6  in  place  of  rn\— vm]  &l  oms.'',  but  not  S^u,  Marti's  idea  is 
that  the  insertion  of  this  word  was  rendered  necessary  by  a  mistake  in 


300  ZECHARIAH 

punctuation  which  made  nn''  a  part  of  v.  <;  but  (i)  nn>  would  not 
take  the  place  of  vm,  which,  moreover  (2),  is  precisely  in  the  style  of 
the  original  author.  Cf.  vv.  «  '■. — O'-ijjs]  For  'o  We.  rds.  '1,  render- 
ing the  whole  clause,  and  they  shall  tread  on  heroes.  Similarly,  Now., 
Marti,  GASm.,  Kit.  (The  last  has  by  mistake  'J3  for  'J3').  This, 
however,  is  inadmissible.  If  the  author  had  intended  to  say  what  is 
attributed  to  him,  he  would  either  have  placed  D"'Dia  before  a^-iaja  or 
cnaj  before  the  proper  form  of  ^••n.  Moreover,  he  would  probably 
have  made  the  noun  a  direct  obj.,  this  being  the  construction  else- 
where used  after  013.  Cf.  Is.  63*  Ps.  64'^  etc.  In  Ez.  i6«-  "  the  3 
is  locative.  Cf.  BDB.  M  makes  sense  if,  with  6  Kenn.  mss.  and 
the  critics  just  cited,  for  o^'aa  one  reads  O'aD  and  translates  it  as  it 
were  mire. — a'on]  For  0''D3,  like  a^'Cip,  2  K.  16',  and  oi'^,  Is.  25'. 
Cf.  Ges.'!"-  »•  ^-  «.— iK'om].    Cf.  gK 

6.  OTinB'ini]  It  is  a  Jewish  conceit  that  this  is  a  composite  form 
representing  both  3W  and  au''  in  Hiph.,  as  used  in  Je.  32",  and  mean- 
ing both  return  to,  and  reinstate  in,  Palestine.  So  AE.,  Abar.,  Ki., 
Dru.,  Rosenm.,  Pu.,  et  al.  The  truth  probably  is  that  there  were 
two  readings  and  that  the  Massoretic  text  resulted  from  the  inability  of 
the  scribes  to  decide  which  was  the  correct  one.  The  great  majority  of 
the  mss.  collated  by  Kenn.  have  this  mongrel  form,  but  6  have  a^narm, 
which  is  ambiguous,  and  25  a\narini,  Hiph.  from  au'\  This  latter  is 
the  one  preferred  by  ($,  Ra.,  Bla.,  Mau.,  Klie.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  Ols.,  Pres., 
Pu.,  el  al.;  but,  as  Koh.  observes,  if  the  writer  had  intended  to  use  the 
Hiph.  of  2V\  he  would  naturally  have  added  a  phrase  telling  how  or 
where  they  were  to  dwell.  Cf.  Je.  32"  Ez.  28^'.  The  omission  of  any 
such  phrase  makes  it  probable  that  here,  as  in  v.  '<•,  it  was  the  Hiph.  of 
air  that  he  intended  to  use.  So  19  &  S,  New.,  Ew.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Brd., 
Or.,  Wri.,  Sta.,  We.,  Kui.,  Now.,  Marti.,  GASm.,  Kit.,  et  al.  If  the 
original  was  a'.^jc'ni,  as  it  is  in  five  of  the  other  eight  instances  in  which 
the  Hiph.  of  aiu-  is  used,  this  form  would  naturally  be  understood  dif- 
ferently by  different  readers,  and  the  zeal  of  the  parties  thus  arising 
would  soon  find  expression  in  the  text. — a^nnji]  Thepf.  in  the  sense 
of  a  plupf.  in  a  supposition  contrary  to  fact.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  'os.  4;  Dr.  5  is. 
— 'i^  ':n  •<2]  These  remaining  words  constitute  an  entirely  indepen- 
dent sentence,  like  the  similar  clause  in  v.  »  a  superfluous  afterthought 
by  a  pious  reader,  metrically  discordant  with  the  preceding  lines.  Cf. 
also  I2<-  «. — 7.  vni]  The  pi.  with  a  collective  subj.  Cf.  Ges. 'Jks.  s 
<">.— 10J3]  Rd.,  with  (6  IB  »  Ui,  a'->nJ3.— p>  ica]  The  Heb.  regu- 
larly uses  3  where  the  English  idiom  requires  as  with  a  prep.  Cf.  12'; 
BDB.,  art.  2,  fin.;  Ges. '»  "«•  •  <■'). — Sr]  This  word  is  pointed  as  a  juss. 
and  interpreted  as  implying  subjective  interest.  Cf.  T>x.^^°  <">.  It 
is  better,  since  d  H  i^  have  a  connective,  to  rd.  hi\ — 8.  DsapNi]  The 
impf.  with  the  simple  1  after  another  impf .  is  comparatively  rare,  be- 


lo-ii  301 

ing,  as  a  rule,  used  only  "when  it  is  desired  to  lay  some  particular 
stress  on  the  vb."  or  "  in  order  to  combine  synonyms."  Dr.  ^  "^  Here 
the  intention  seems  to  be  to  emphasise  the  personality  of  the  subj. — 
DTinc  12]  An  interpolation.     Cf.  v.  «. — i^n]  Kuiper  rds.  nans. 

9.  oyntNi]  This  word,  as  pointed,  contradicts  the  promise  of  the 
preceding  verse.  What  the  author  wishes  to  say  is  evidently,  Though 
I  have  scattered  them.  When,  however,  the  impf.  is  used  of  past  ac- 
tion, a  preceding  1  usually  takes  the  form  of  1  consec.  Here,  therefore, 
if  the  vb.  is  correct,  the  reading  should  be  opiiNj.  So  Bla.,  Marti, 
Kit.  Butthecorrectnessof  the  vb.  is  questioned.  It  is  not  elsewhere 
used  in  the  sense  of  scatter  of  human  beings.  The  word  n-ir  is  the 
one  regularly  used  in  that  signification.  See  esp.  Ez.  20^3  22'*  29'* 
3023,  where  it  occurs  in  the  phrase  "scatter  in  the  lands,"  and  Ps. 
44i3/'2,  where  the  dispersion  is  described  as  "among  the  nations." 
Perhaps,  therefore,  the  original  reading,  as  We.  suggests,  was  aiJNi^ 
So  Now.,  GASm. — •'jnor*  Dipmcai]  Marti  oms.  these  words.  It  is 
not  they,  however,  but  the  remaining  four,  that  have  been  added.  On 
the  1  of  a^imcai,  see  Ges. ^'s^-  "o'e  <*). — vni]  Rd.,  with  (I  B,  vm. 
So  Seek.,  New.,  Sta.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — jua'^i]  One  reason,  the 
metrical,  for  considering  this  word  a  gloss  has  been  given  in  the  com- 
ments. There  are  others:  (2)  The  region  of  Lebanon,  if  it  had  been 
in  the  mind  of  the  author,  being  a  part  of  western  Palestine,  did  not 
need  to  be  mentioned.  (3)  The  presence  of  the  word  in  the  text  can 
be  explained  as  a  reminiscence  of  Dt.  3"  or  Je.  22  ^ — t<x':''].  The 
subj.  is  a  pron.  referring  to  v^'-     Cf.  Jos.  i7'«. 

11.  ia>'i]  Rd.,  with  ^  E,  na^Ji,  the  subj.  being  the  returning  exiles. 
So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — ms  an]  (§,  iv  6a\d<Tffri  arev^;  U,  per 
mare  angustum.  The  phrase  has  given  rise  to  many  and  various 
opinions.  The  word  mx  has  been  treated  as  a  proper  name  (Hi.);  a 
substantive  meaning  trouble  or  adversary,  used  independently  (Koh.) 
or  as  the  subj.  of  ">3>'(Ki.),  or  an  appositive  to  c  (Ke.),  or  a  gen. 
with  D'  (RV.),  or  an  ace.  denoting  limit  of  motion  (de  D.),  or  an 
adverbial  ace.  (AV.);  a  vb.  with  the  sense  of  cleave  (Hd.).  Others 
have  attempted  to  emend  the  text.  Thus  Bla.  rds.  niV,  to  Tyre;  also 
Klo.,  Sta.  This  reading,  however,  is  probably  older  than  Bla.,  for  it 
seems  to  have  suggested  the  gloss  that  follows.  These  attempts  to 
construe  or  emend  the  passage  having  proven  unsatisfactory,  modern 
critics  have  returned  to  Seeker's  conjecture,  that  here,  as  in  Is.  11" 
the  text  should  read  anxs  an.  So  We.,  Kui.,  Now.,  Marti,  GASm., 
Kit. — D'''^J  an  njni]  The  secondary  character  of  this  clause  is  evi- 
dent, (i)  It  requires  an  awkward  change  of  subj.  (2)  It  sepa- 
rates two  lines  that  belong  together.  (3)  It  adds  a  fifth  line  to  an 
already  complete  stanza.  (4)  It  is  easily  explained  as  a  loan  from 
9^  suggested  by  nix,  in  which  the  scribe  who  inserted  it  found  the 


302  ZECHARIAH 

name  of  Tyre. — ironi]  We.,  taking  for  granted  the  genuineness  of 
the  preceding  clause,  rds.,  with  Kenn.  96,  (6^,  rori;  but  if  that  line 
be  omitted  there  will  be  no  need  of  changing  this  or  either  of  the 
following  vbs.  This  one  is  explained  as  a  Hiph.  used  in  the  sense  of 
Qal.  Cf.  BDB. — -»n']  Generally  the  Nile,  but  in  the  pi.  sometimes 
streams  other  than  the  branches  of  that  river.  Cf.  33^'  Jb.  28'". 
Moreover,  in  Dn.  12^  "•  it  is  used  of  the  Tigris.  The  context,  with 
its  regular  alternations  between  Egypt  and  Syria,  makes  it  probable 
that  it  here  means  the  Euphrates,  or  is  an  error  for  injn,  the  usual 
designation  for  that  river.  Cf.  Gn.  31",  etc.  The  mistake  would  be 
a  natural  one  after  the  allusion  in  the  first  line  to  the  passage  of  the 
Red  Sea. — 12.  This  whole  verse  is  evidently  an  accretion,  (i)  It 
breaks  with  the  metrical  scheme  of  the  rest  of  the  chapter.  (2)  It 
disturbs  the  connection  between  v.  >'  and  11'.  (3)  It  is  clumsy  and 
confusing  in  its  style  compared  with  the  preceding  verses.  The 
last  point  holds  even  if,  for  D\'n3Ji,  one  read,  with  We.,  et  al.,  onnaji, 
and  their  might. — r\^7^>■2\  <&  E  add  their  God. — idShp'']  Rd.,  with 
Kenn.  150  and  <&  &,  i'^Snn\  So  Bla.,  New.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti, 
Kit. — 11'.  TT-\N3]  The  prep,  denotes  that  the  action  of  the  vb.  will 
be  unrestricted;  the  fire  will  devour  at  will  among  the  cedars.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^  "'•  3  (A)  (o. — 2.  The  first  half  of  the  verse,  as  shown  in  the  com- 
ments, betrays  its  ungenuineness  by  its  content.  It  is  also  metrically 
inadmissible,  (i)  It  separates  two  couplets  that  are  more  closely 
related  to  each  other  than  either  of  them  is  to  it.  (2)  It  makes  the 
stanza  in  which  it  is  found  just  so  much  longer  than  the  others.  The 
phraseology  betrays  dependence  on  v. '. — ik'n]  Causal.  Cf.  Ho.  14^. 
Ges.  ^ '". — n?a]  Usually  with  the  art.,  which  is  here  omitted,  although 
the  noun  is  a  vocative. — 11x2^]  Qr,,  with  many  mss.,  T'Xjn.  The 
art.  is  sometimes  found  with  an  attributive  adj.  when  the  noun 
has  none.  Cf.  4'  i4'o,  etc.;  Ges.^"«-  «•  R-  («);  Dr.  ^^o^.— 3.  Sip]  With 
the  force  of  hark.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'<*-  '•  ^-  '. — nSS»]  On  the  composite 
shewa,  see  Ges.  ^'o-  -•  '^^  ^  <">. — onrnx]  Rd.  on''j(nn,  as  in  Je.  25^8. 
— Iii'i]  Always  with  the  art.  in  prose,  and  only  twice  (Ps.  42'/*  Jb. 
40")  without  it  in  poetry. 

d.    The  two  shepherds  (11*-''  i^''-^. 

The  section  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  paragraphs,  the  first 
of  which  deals  with 

(i)  The  careless  shepherd  (ii^'"). — The  prophet  represents  him- 
self as  directed  by  Yahweh  to  take  charge  of  a  flock  of  sheep  that 
are  being  reared  for  the  market.  He  does  so,  but  finally  tires  of 
his  duties  and  asks  to  be  dismissed ;  breaking  one  of  the  symbolic 


II' 


S03 


staves  with  which  he  has  provided  himself  when  he  leaves  the 
sheep,  and  the  other  when  he  receives  his  wages  and  deposits  them 
in  the  temple  treasury.  The  story  is  more  complete  in  its  details 
than  that  of  6^^-,  but  the  absence  of  definite  persons  and  places 
and  the  neglect  of  the  author  to  keep  his  narrative  throughout  dis- 
tinct from  the  ideas  symbolised  indicate  that,  whatever  one  may 
think  of  the  other  case,  one  has  here  to  do  with  a  parable.  Cf. 
Ez.  4'^-  5'^-  i2»'ff-. 

4.  The  interpretation  of  the  story  as  a  parable  does  not  deprive 
the  introductory  statement,  Thus  saith  Yahweh,  of  significance. 
The  author  would  doubtless  have  claimed  that,  although  Yahweh 
did  not  actually  command  him  to  perform  the  acts  described,  the 
teaching  of  the  parable  had  the  divine  sanction.  The  addition  io 
me  indicates  that  this  was  his  conviction.  Cf.  Is.  8"  i8*,  etc. 
Yahweh  instructs  the  prophet  to  feed,  act  in  the  capacity  of  a  shep- 
herd to,  the  flock  for  slaughter.  Cf.  Je.  12^.  Too  much  stress  can- 
not be  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  sheep  are  destined  for  the  sham- 
bles. This  seems  to  have  been  ignored  by  those  who  find  here  a 
representation  of  a  good  shepherd,  whether  Yahweh  (Stade)  or  a 
humane  high  priest  (Wellhausen) .  It  is  clear  from  v.  ®,  where  the 
term  shepherd  is  a  synonym  for  king,  that  the  command  here  given 
requires  the  prophet  to  personate  a  king  and  illustrate  the  char- 
acter of  his  government.  Who  the  king  is,  the  author  is  careful 
not  to  explain,  but,  as  shown  in  the  Introduction  (256),  the  indi- 
cations point  to  Ptolemy  III,  king  of  Egypt  from  247  to  222  B.C. 
It  is  clear  from  w.  ^^  ^-  that  he  is  the  first  of  two  rulers  portrayed  by 
the  same  hand.  He  must  therefore  have  ceased  to  rule  before  this 
and  the  next  ten  verses  were  written.  In  other  words,  this  pas- 
sage, like  Dn.  11^-12*,  is  not  so  much  prophecy  as  history. 

5.  This  king  is  not  himself  accused  of  destroying  his  own  sheep. 
It  is  they  that  buy  them  who  slay  them.  The  terms  here  used  are 
best  explained  as  applying  to  the  method  of  collecting  the  taxes  in 
Palestine  from  the  time  of  Ptolemy  III  onward.  The  Jews  had 
previously  had  little  reason  to  complain  in  this  matter.  When, 
however,  Joseph,  a  disreputable  nephew  of  the  high  priest  Onias 
II,  by  cunning  and  bribery  secured  the  franchise,  it  became  an  in- 
strument of  cruelty  as  well  as  a  source  of  enormous  profit  to  its 


304  ZECHARIAH 

possessor  and  his  subordinates,  who  literally  bought  and  sold  the 
people  without  mercy.  They  could  slay  uncondemned,  that  is, 
without  incurring  guilt  or  feeling  remorse  for  their  cruelty.  Cf. 
Je.  50"  '•.  It  must  be  the  same — who,  moreover,  are  Jews;  other- 
wise they  would  not  use  the  language  attributed  to  them — that  sell 
them,  saying  in  their  conceit  and  hypocrisy,  Blessed  be  Yahweh  tfmi 
I  am  rich !  CJ.  Ho.  12^  ^\  Meanwhile,  their  shepherd  (not,  as  the 
word  is  usually  rendered,  shepherds),  the  king  whom  the  prophet 
represents,  hath  no  compassion  on  them,  affords  them  no  protec- 
tion. This  is  precisely  what  one  would  expect  from  that  "re- 
markable king"  Ptolemy  III,  who,  as  Mahaffy  puts  it,*  changed 
"from  a  successful  warrior  into  a  good-natured,  but  lazy,  patron  of 
politicians,  of  priests,  and  of  pedants." — 6.  This  verse  is  treated 
as  a  gloss  by  some  of  the  later  critics,  but  that  is  because  they  have 
misunderstood  the  context.  If  the  interpretation  above  given  to 
vv.  ■*  ^-  be  adopted,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  resort  to  excision. 
The  prophet  has  been  directed  to  play  the  part  of  a  shepherd  who, 
though  careless  and  unworthy  of  his  office,  has  his  place  in  the 
divine  plan.  The  present  purpose  of  Yahweh  is  here  revealed. 
/  will  no  longer  spare  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  he  says,  but  lo,  I 
will  deliver  men,  each  into  the  hand  of  his  shepherd  (not  his  neigh- 
bour), and  into  the  hand  of  his  king.  The  scenes  enacted  in  Pales- 
tine are  to  be  repeated  under  other  rulers  in  other  parts  of  the 
earth,  until  they,  these  kings,  shall  crush  the  earth,  allow  ruin  to 
overtake  their  lands.  All  this  Yahweh  will,  for  the  present,  per- 
mit. /  will  not,  he  declares,  rescue  from  their,  these  kings',  hands. 
In  the  East  as  well  as  in  the  West  the  people  had  long  been  the 
sport  and  the  prey  of  their  rulers. 

7.  These  were  the  prophet's  instructions.  He  proceeded,  ac- 
cording to  his  narrative,  to  execute  them.  So  I  fed,  he  says,  the 
flock,  the  flock  destined /or  slaughter.  The  Massoretic  text  of  the 
rest  of  this  clause  is  unintelligible,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  Greek 
Version  that  the  original  reading  was, /or  the  traders  in  sheep,  these 
traders  being  the  heartless  buyers  and  sellers  who,  as  above  de- 
scribed, make  a  business  of  killing  the  sheep.  The  prophet  had 
the  usual  implements  of  a  shepherd,  among  which  was  a  staff  such 

*  HE.,  iv,  124. 


as  David  carried.  Cj.  i  S.  17*°,  Indeed,  he  had  two  staves.  To 
these  he  gave  symboHc  names,  calling  the  one  Delight,  and  the  other 
Bonds.  The  symbolic  use  of  these  staves  seems  to  have  been  sug- 
gested by  Ezekiel's  parable  of  the  two  sticks.  Cf.  37^^^->7  In 
this  case,  in  spite  of  later  explanations,  the  meaning  is  not  easily 
discoverable.  In  seeking  it  one  must  keep  constantly  in  mind  that 
the  prophet,  as  a  shepherd,  represents,  not  Yahweh,  but  an  earthly 
king.  This  being  admitted,  the  two  staves  will  naturally  symbol- 
ise the  duties  or  relations  of  a  shepherd  to  his  flock,  and,  in  the 
higher  sphere,  of  a  ruler  to  his  people,  or  the  conditions  that  result 
from  the  observance  of  such  relations.  Now  the  ideal  attitude  of 
a  king  toward  his  subjects,  as  of  a  shepherd  toward  his  sheep,  is 
one  of  benevolent  solicitude  for  their  welfare,  and  every  king,  when 
he  accepts  his  cro^vn,  explicitly  or  implicitly  obligates  himself,  so 
long  as  his  subjects  remain  loyal  to  him,  to  devote  himself  to  their 
best  interests.  The  first  staff,  therefore,  is  called  Delight,  a  name 
which,  in  the  light  of  Ps.  90"  and  Pr.  24^,  may  be  interpreted  as 
denoting  the  pleasure  that  accompanies  well-being.  The  breaking 
of  this  staff,  according  to  v.  ^**,  is  therefore  fitly  represented  as 
equivalent  to  the  repudiation  of  a  covenant  guaranteeing  the  be- 
stowment  of  the  blessings  by  which  the  pleasure  was  induced. 
Secondly,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  ruler  not  only  to  maintain  toward  those 
under  his  authority  a  disposition  and  attitude  that  will  promote 
their  happiness,  but  also  to  provide  that  their  relations  with  one 
another  shall  be  such  as  contribute  to  the  same  result.  He  must 
bind  them  into  a  harmonious  whole;  otherwise  his  own  efforts  to 
benefit  them  may  arouse  discontent  and  jealousy  issuing  in  the 
most  serious  internal  disturbances.  This  seems  to  have  been  the 
thought  of  the  prophet  in  naming  his  second  staff  Bonds,  that  is. 
Unity.  At  any  rate,  this  is  in  harmony  with  what  he  says,  in  v.  ", 
that  he  meant  by  finally  breaking  it.  Note,  however,  that  the 
staves  symbolise  simply  ideals  or  obligations.  Moreover,  the  act 
of  taking  them  has  a  restricted  significance.  It  cannot  mean  that 
the  prophet,  as  a  shepherd,  fulfilled  the  requirements  of  his  office. 
The  sequel  shows  that,  although  he  recognised  his  obligations, 
he  neglected  them;  and  this  thought  must  be  supplied  when  he 
repeats  that  he  fed,  took  charge  of,  the  flock. 


3o6  ZECHARIAH 

8.  There  should  now  at  once  follow  an  account  of  the  prophet's 
experience  as  a  careless  shepherd.  It  is  postponed  to  make  room 
for  a  statement  that  immediately  challenges  attention  and  exami- 
nation, /  destroyed  the  three  shepherds  in  one  month.  The  use  of  the 
article  often  implies  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  reader  which  will 
enable  him  to  identify  the  persons  or  objects  mentioned  without 
further  description.  Hence  Wellhausen  argues  that  these  shep- 
herds must  have  been  introduced  in  a  passage  connecting  this  verse 
with  the  one  preceding  which  has  been  lost.  Moreover,  since  there 
seems  to  be  as  little  connection  between  the  statement  quoted  cind 
what  follows,  he  supposes  that  there  is  another  lacuna  at  this  point. 
This  hypothesis  is  illogical  and  unnecessary.  The  natural  infer- 
ence from  the  fact  that  the  statement  in  question  has  no  connec- 
tion with  either  the  preceding  or  the  following  context  is  that  it  is 
an  interpolation,  and  this  inference  is  confirmed  by  other  consid- 
erations. For  example,  the  object  of  the  parable,  as  already  ex- 
plained, was  to  picture  conditions  as  they  were  not  long  before  it 
was  written.  From  v.  ®  it  appears  that  these  conditions  were  in 
accord  with  the  divine  purpose  for  the  time  being.  The  author  can- 
not, therefore,  have  represented  Yahweh,  who  must  be  the  "I"  of 
the  sentence,  as  destroying  three  other  shepherds  presumably  for 
the  same  offence  that  he  himself  was  instructed  to  commit.*  It 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  statement  is  a  gloss  by  some  one 
who  thought  he  saw  mirrored  in  the  parable  a  time  when  three 
rulers  one  after  another  in  rapid  succession  were  removed.  The 
ojMnions  with  reference  to  these  rulers  are  many  and  various.  The 
latest  exegetes  incline  to  identify  them  with  certain  high  priests  of 
the  period  just  preceding  the  Maccabean  uprising;  for  example, 
Jason,  Lysimachus,  and  Menelaus.     Cf.  2  Mac.  4^^-  ^^-  -"''^• 

So  Rub.,  Marti.  This  is  only  one  of  many  different  conjectures  on  the  sub- 
ject. Rub.  enumerates  twenty-five.  There  are  at  least  forty,  together  cov- 
ering the  whole  field  of  Hebrew  history  from  the  Exodus  to  the  conquest  of 
Palestine  by  the  Romans,  and  including  most  of  the  men  and  institutions 
therein  of  any  importance.  Indeed,  some  have  sought  these  three  shepherds 
outside  of  the  Holy  Land.  The  following  specimens  will  indicate  how  wide  is 
the  divergence  on  the  subject.     The  three  are  identified  with  Moses,  Aaron, 

*  This  objection  is  valid,  whether  the  clause  be  left  where  it  is  or,  as  Marti  suggests,  placed 
after  V.  '». 


II' 


307 


and  Miriam;  Jer.,  etal.:  with  Zechariah,  Shallum  and  another,  perhaps  Men- 
ahem;  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  et  al.:  with  Judas  Maccabeus  and  his  brothers  Jona- 
than and  Simon;  Abar.,  el  al.:  with  the  kings,  priests,  and  prophets  of  the 
Hebrews;  Theodoret,  el  al.:  with  the  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes; 
Lightfoot,  etal.:  with  Assyria,  Babylonia,  and  Persia;  Klie.,  el  al.  Of  course, 
most  of  these  conjectures  would  not  have  been  proposed  if  their  authors  had 
not  first  persuaded  themselves  that  a  month  might  mean  any  length  of  time 
from  a  few  days  to  210  years. 

Since,  however,  the  interpolator  must  have  seen  that  throughout 
the  parable  the  shepherd  represents  a  king,  he  would  naturally  use 
the  term  in  the  same  sense.  The  three  shepherds  are  therefore 
doubtless  three  kings,  and  since  this  gloss  is  later  than  the  orig- 
inal parable,  presumably  kings  of  Syria.  If  so,  it  is  probable  that 
they  are  the  three  who,  according  to  Dn.  7^,  were  "plucked  up"  / 
— according  to  v.  -''  of  the  same  chapter  they  were  "put  down " — 
by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  who  are  plausibly  identified  with 
Seleucus  IV,  Hehodorus,  a  usurper,  and  Demetrius  Soter,  son  of 
Seleucus  and  rightful  heir  to  the  throne,  whom  Antiochus  Epiph- 
anes superseded.  Perhaps,  however,  since  Demetrius  not  only 
was  not  destroyed,  but  finally  succeeded  to  the  throne,  the  three  are 
Antiochus  III,  Seleucus  IV,  and  Heliodorus.  If  it  be  obj'ected  that 
these  three  were  not  removed  within  a  month,  one  may  reply  that 
although  Seleucus  ruled  nine  years,  in  Dn.  11^*'  his  reign  is  reck- 
oned at  "a  few  days,"  and,  if  the  author  of  the  gloss  took  the  words 
literally,  he  could  easily  persuade  himself  that  they  all  died  within 
the  given  time. — The  removal  of  this  gloss  clears  the  way  for  a 
natural  and  satisfactory  interpretation  of  the  rest  of  the  verse. 
It  is  a  confession  by  the  shepherd  that,  although  he  had  taken 
upon  himself  to  nourish  and  protect  the  sheep  committed  to  his 
charge,  he  became  impatient  with  them,  felt  and  showed  a  repug- 
nance toward  them  not  in  harmony  with  his  calling.  Here,  again, 
is  unmistakable  evidence  that  it  is  not  Yahweh,  or  any  other  person 
or  persons  properly  called  good,  whom  the  prophet  is  impersonat- 
ing, but  some  one  of  a  very  different  character,  namely,  a  fallible 
and  recreant  human  ruler. — The  repugnance  of  the  shepherd  for 
his  sheep  naturally  begot  in  them  a  corresponding  feeling;  their 
souls,  he  says,  also  loathed  me. 

9.  The  indifference  of  the  shepherd  shows  itself  in  neglect  of  his 


3o8  ZECHARIAH 

sheep.  Indeed,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  repudiate  his  duties  toward 
them.  The  one  that  is  dying  of  hunger  or  disease,  he  heartlessly 
declares,  shall  die,  for  aught  he  cares,  and  the  one  that  is  being  de- 
stroyed by  wild  beasts  or  other  foes  shall  be  destroyed.  These  two 
clauses  are  a  development  of  the  last  of  v. '  in  the  manner  of  Eze- 
kiel's  arraignment  of  the  shepherds  (kings)  of  Israel  in  34^^'. 
Cf.  also  Je.  15'  '■.  The  last  is  a  less  apparent  parallel  to  34'^"^'; 
but  in  it  the  author  forgets  his  role  and  uses  language  that  rather 
recalls  Is.  9*^/^°.  He  is  in  reality  describing  the  bitter  struggle 
which,  growing  out  of  the  rise  of  the  Tobiads,  rent  the  nobility  in 
twain  and  brought  untold  evil  upon  the  Jewish  people.  They  that 
are  left,  he  says,  as  if  the  struggle  were  still  future,  sliall  devour,  each 
the  fiesh  of  its  fellow. — 10.  The  shepherd  now  brings  forward  the 
first  of  his  staves,  the  one  named  Delight,  symbol  of  the  happy  con- 
dition of  a  people  under  an  ideal  ruler.  Since  he  has  repudiated 
his  obligations  as  a  shepherd,  it  is  fitting  that  he  should  cut  it 
asunder,  for  nothing  could  better  represent  the  abnormal  relation 
between  him  and  his  charges  and  its  unhappy  consequences  than 
such  a  severed  and  useless  instrument.  No  formal  explanation 
would  seem  to  be  necessary,  yet  he  gives  one,  and,  in  so  doing,  adds 
a  detail  that  deserves  attention.  It  is  found  in  the  clause  in  which 
he  describes  the  covenant  now  broken.  My  covenant,  he  calls  it, 
again  deserting  his  figure,  which  I  had  made  with  all  tJie  peoples. 
The  words  are  usually  understood  as  meaning  a  covenant  by  which 
the  Jews  were  protected  from  other  nations;*  but  this  is  not  the 
interpretation  that  best  harmonises  with  the  main  thought  of  the 
parable.  The  covenant,  if  represented  by  the  stafif,  can  only  be  a 
covenant  with  peoples  rej>resented  by  the  sheep,  and  surely  the 
Jews  were  among  them.  If,  therefore,  the  shepherd  represents 
Ptolemy  III,  one  must  infer  that  not  only  the  Jews,  but  the  peoples 
about  them  who  were  tributary  to  Egypt  had  just  cause  of  com- 
plaint against  him  as  a  ruler.  If  so,  it  is  not  strange  that  a  little 
later,  when  Antiochus  the  Great  undertook  the  conquest  of  Egypt, 
he  met  with  almost  no  opposition  until  he  reached  Gaza,  the  Phoe- 
nicians and  the  Philistines  being  as  ready  as  the  Jews  for  a  change 
of  masters. — 11.  The  words  and  it  was  broken  in  that  day  should 

*  So  Theod.  Mops.,  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  Burger,  Brd.,  Pu.,  Or.. 
Wc,  Now..  Marti,  el  al. 


be  attached  to  v. '",  of  which  it  is  properly  the  conclusion.  The 
rest  of  the  verse  is  very  realistic.  The  prophet,  resuming  his  role, 
reports  that,  when  the  traders  in  sheep  who  were  watching,  or,  as 
van  Hoonacker  ingeniously  suggests,  had  hired,  him  saw  him  cut 
the  staff  asunder,  they  knew  that  it  was  the  word  of  Yahweh;  that 
the  action  performed  correctly,  and  to  their  shame,  represented  ex- 
isting conditions.  This  is  so  simple  and  natural  a  declaration  that 
it  suggests  the  question  whether  the  prophet  did  not  go  through  a 
pantomimic  presentation  of  his  message  before  he  put  it  into  writ- 
ing.— 12.  The  shepherd,  although  he  has  failed  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  his  office,  presents  a  claim  for  wages.  The  usual 
interpretation  makes  him  address  himself  to  the  flock.  It  would 
seem  permissible  if  the  Massoretic  text  of  v.  "  were  correct.  If, 
however,  as  has  been  shown,  it  is  not  the  sheep,  but  the  traders  in 
them,  who  are  watching  the  prophet,  the  natural  inference  is  that  it 
is  the  latter  to  whom  the  next  speech  is  addressed.  This  inference 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  it  is  these  traders,  according  to  v.  ', 
whom  the  prophet  has  been  serving.  They,  then,  are  the  persons 
whom  he  now  approaches,  rather  hesitatingly,  with  the  request,  7/ i/ 
be  good  in  your  eyes,  give  me  my  h  ire.  Then  he  practically  confesses 
his  un  worthiness  of  any  remuneration  by  adding,  hut,  if  not,  refrain. 
The  traders  respond  by  paying  him,  not,  apparently,  according  to 
a  previous  agreement,  but  according  to  their  estimate  of  his  value 
as  a  shepherd.  They  weighed  me,  he  says,  my  hire,  thirty  pieces, 
that  is,  shekels,  of  silver;  about  ;^4  2s  sterling,  or  $20  in  American 
money,  according  to  Ex.  21^^  the  price  of  a  Hebrew  slave.  The 
meaning  of  these  words  does  not  at  first  appear.  It  is  necessary 
to  recall  whom  the  shepherd  represents,  and  whom  the  traders,  to 
appreciate  their  significance.  But,  when  this  is  done,  and  one 
realises  that  it  is  the  king  of  Egypt  who  is  appraised  and  the  tax- 
gatherers  of  Syria  who  appraise  him,*  the  passage  becomes  one  of 
the  best  examples  of  sarcasm  in  the  Old  Testament. 

13.  There  foUows  an  episode  which,  on  any  interpretation  of 
the  parable  as  a  whole,  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  In  the  first 
place,  according  to  the  present  reading,  it  is  not  Yahweh,  but  the 
shepherd,  who  has  been  appraised;  and,  secondly,  there  is  no  dis- 

*  Kliefoth  and  others  connect  the  amount  of  money  paid  with  v.  *,  but,  if  v.  8a  is  a  gloss,  the 
dependence,  if  there  is  any,  must  be  on  its  side. 


3IO  ZECHARIAH 

coverable  reason  why  the  money  should  be  thrown  to  the  potter  in 
the  temple  or  elsewhere.  It  is  therefore  pretty  generally  agreed 
that  the  text  needs  emendation,  and,  indeed,  that  the  command 
addressed  to  the  shepherd  should  read,  put  it  into  the  treasxiry,  the 
noble  price  at  which  thou  hast  been  valued  by  them.  The  term 
noble,  of  course,  is  to  be  understood  as  ironical.  The  reference  to 
the  treasury  or  storehouse  is  not  explicit  enough  to  make  it  clear 
to  the  modem  reader  where  the  money  is  to  be  deposited.  In  the 
statement  that  follows,  however,  the  omission  is  made  good;  for 
here  the  shepherd  says  that  he  put  the  silver  at  the  house  of  Yahweh 
into  the  treasury,  or,  to  put  it  more  idiomatically,  brought  it  to  the 
house  of  Yahweh  and  put  it  into  the  treasury.  There  are  several 
references  to  the  treasury  of  the  temple  or  its  contents.  Cf. 
Jos.  6-^  I  K.  14^"  2  K.  24'^  etc.  It  appears  from  2  Mac.  3*  ^-  that 
it  was  a  depository  for  private  as  well  as  public  funds.  When, 
therefore,  the  shepherd  is  commanded  to  put  his  wages  into  the 
treasury,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  they  are  to  be  devoted  to 
Yahweh.  It  is  more  probable — and  the  irony  of  the  command  is 
increased  by  this  interpretation — that  they  are  to  be  placed  there 
for  security. 

14.  In  the  final  verse,  which  is  but  loosely  connected  with  those 
that  j)recede,  the  shepherd  tells  how  he  disposed  of  his  second 
staff.  Bonds.  It,  also,  he  cut  asunder,  thus,  as  he  explains,  sunder- 
ing the  brotherhood  between  Judah  and  Israel.  The  names  Judah 
and  Israel  are  most  frequently  used  of  the  two  kingdoms  into  which 
after  the  time  of  Solomon  the  Hebrews  were  divided;  but  the  later 
prophets  sometimes  employ  them  together  as  a  comprehensive  des- 
ignation for  the  entire  people.  Thus,  in  Je.  23^  they  are  equiv- 
alent to  "the  seed  of  the  house  of  Israel"  of  v.  ^.  Cf.  also  Je. 
31" '^^  Ez.  37'"ff-,  etc.  The  brotherhood  of  Judah  and  Israel 
in  this  sense  would  be  the  unity  of  purpose  and  effort  among  the 
Hebrews  after  the  Exile,  especially  those  that  constituted  the  re- 
stored community  in  Palestine.  Now,  the  most  serious  rupture 
of  this  unity  occurred,  as  has  already  been  observed,  on  the  rise 
of  the  Tobiads,  when  there  Ijegan  a  partisan  struggle  for  the  con- 
trol of  affairs  that  finally  assumed  the  dimensions  of  a  civil  war. 
If,  therefore,  Ptolemy  III  is  the  shepherd  of  this  parable,  this  rup- 


ture,  for  which  he  was  indirectly  responsible,  must  be  the  one  sym- 
bolised by  cutting  asunder  the  second  staff.  Thus  the  whole  be- 
comes a  picture  of  conditions,  especially  in  Palestine,  just  before 
that  country  ceased  to  belong  to  Egypt  and  became  a  part  of  the 
Syrian  empire. 

In  Mt.  27^  ^-  the  Evangelist,  referring  to  the  purchase  of  the 
Potter's  Field,  says,  "Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken 
through  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  saying.  And  they  took  the  thirty 
pieces  of  silver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  appraised,  whom  some 
of  the  sons  of  Israel  appraised,  and  gave  them  for  the  Potter's 
Field  as  the  Lord  appointed  me."  The  discussion  of  this  quota- 
tion properly  belongs  in  a  commentary  on  the  Gospel  from  which 
it  is  taken,  but  two  or  three  points  may  here  be  noticed.  In  the 
first  place,  there  should  be  no  doubt  that  the  Evangelist  meant  to 
refer  to  v.  ^^  of  the  parable  above  discussed,  the  divergence  from 
the  original  being  explained  by  the  liberty  he  allowed  himself  in 
his  quotations.  Cf.  Mt.  2'^  21^.  The  appearance  of  the  name  of 
Jeremiah  for  that  of  Zechariah  has  received  various  explanations. 
Among  them  are  the  following:  (i)  That  the  name  is  an  addition 
to  the  original  text  of  the  Gospel.  (2)  That  the  name  of  Jeremiah, 
or  an  abbreviation  of  it,  has  been  substituted  for  that  of  Zecha- 
riah by  a  careless  copyist.  (3)  That  the  name  of  Jeremiah,  whose 
book  once  stood  first  among  the  prophets,  is  here  a  title  for  the 
whole  collection.  (4)  That  the  words  of  Zechariah  are  based  on 
Je.  18,  and  are  therefore  virtually  the  words  of  Jeremiah.  These 
however,  are  only  so  many  excuses  for  refusing  to  make  the  harm- 
less admission  that  the  Evangelist  attributes  to  the  greater  and 
better  known  of  two  prophets  words  that  belong  to  the  other. 
See  Mk.  i^,  where  a  passage  from  Malachi  is  attributed  to  Isaiah. 
Finally,  the  incident  narrated  in  the  Gospel  is  the  fulfilment  of 
the  words  of  the  prophet,  not  in  the  strict  sense  of  being  the  event 
he  had  in  mind  as  he  wrote,  but  only  in  the  loose  sense  of  being  an 
event  by  which  the  words  of  the  prophet  are  recalled.  C/.  Mt. 
2'^-  =^^  etc. 

4.  in'^x]  (5,  wavTWKpiTwp  =  mN3x;  &^u  ^dd  v^^.  Rd.,  with  Kenn. 
246  (now)  ••'^N  as  in  v.  '^ — njinn]  A  gen.,  the  equivalent  of  an  inf.  of  pur- 
pose.    Cf.  Is.  536  Ps.  4423,  etc.;   Ges.^ '"•  *  o /,«.;   Ko.^«<".    &  has 


312  ZECHARIAH 

l^Xt^uo;  acc.  to  Sebok  an  error  for  |£>iV^^j)uO. — 5.  p^jp]  With  a  fem. 
pi.  sf.  because  ins  is  conceived  as  a  collection  of  ewes.  CJ.  Je.  50". — 
pnn>]  For  pji^%  the  reading  of  25  Kenn.  mss.  The  j  is  the  sf.  of  the 
3  pi.  fem. — ictyN"  .'^'cn^]  With  daghesh  orlhophonicum  to  call  attention 
to  the  silent  shewa  under  the  preceding  guttural.  See  also  '^onx  v. ». 
Cf.  Ges.^  "•  «  (*>.— iCN']  Rd.,  with  «  U  g>  01,  ni:N\  So  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  Kit.  The  loss  of  the  pi.  ending  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
clause  quoted  each  of  the  subjs.  speaks  for  himself. — run-]  <gA  adds  -rrav- 
TUKpdrcjp. — -\u';'Ni]  Qr.,  with  30  Kenn.  mss.,  -\'r;;xi,  by  syncope  for  -\>r;'>si. 
C/.  'J^Nv,  Ges.  ^^  "  **>.  The  Kt.,  however,  with  the  pointing ->u';;ni  is  de- 
fensible. C/".  Ho.  12'/*  Jb.  15"'.  The  1  has  a  circumstantial  force.  Cf. 
Gn.  1818  Ju.  16",  etc.;  Ges.  %  >«• '  '*'  J^-  '.  The  Vrss.  have  the  equivalent 
of  either  1U7J1  (<S  IB)  or  un^ryni  (&  01). — on^'yi]  Rd.,  with  18  mss. 
&  01,  P''>"».  So  Bla.,  We.,  Now.,  Kit.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  au- 
thor, having  taken  pains  to  use  the  fem.  sf.  in  inijp,  would  so  soon  for- 
get himself.  See  also  jn^':';*.  A  copyist,  however,  might  carelessly  write 
the  one  for  the  other.  The  noun  might  be  either  sg.  or  pi.,  but,  since  the 
vb.  of  which  it  is  the  subj.  is  sg.,  it  must  be  of  the  same  number.  Cf.  Na. 
3';  Ges. ^^'i-  '■  K-  •  (*);  "•  3-  ^-  ». — 6.  "djn]  The  separate  pron.  instead 
of  a  sf.  So  V.  "  12";  with  a  sf.,  13^ — iny]  Rd.,  as  required  by  the  par- 
allel term,  his  king,  against  the  Vrss.,  in>'i.  So  Mich.,  Sta.,  We.,  Now., 
Marti,  GASm.,  Kit. — taSD]  Van  H.,  contrary  to  the  context,  rds.  i-\Db. 
— 7.  "jy  pS]  Many  and  various  attempts  have  been  made  to  find  in 
these  words  a  meaning  in  harmony  with  the  context,  but  both  of  them 
have  been  tortured  in  vain.  The  fact  that  p  reappears  in  v.  •'  should 
have  put  any  one  acquainted  with  Heb.  on  the  right  track.  Those  who 
consulted  the  Vrss.  had  only  to  turn  to  (S  to  find  in  its  reading  ets  rr]v  Xava- 
avXriv  or  eis  ttjv  7^v  Xavdav  (L),  a  waymark  to  the  original,  viz.,  \'.Jj;..7!^. 
So  Flugge,  Bla.,  Burger,  Rub.,  Klo.,  Sta.,  We.,  Kui.,  Now.,  Marti, 
GASm.,  Gins.,  Kit. — inNS]  Not  a  cstr.,  but  a  sharpened  form  of  the  abs. 
used  nominally.  Cf.  2  S.  17"  Is.  27",  etc.;  Da.  ^^s.  k.  2 — a^'^ah]  There 
seems  to  be  no  object  in  insisting  on  the  Massoretic  vocalisation  against 
the  testimony  of  the  Vrss. ;  (&,  ffxolvi<rfm;  ll^,funicnlum;  &,  ]i^--;  all  of 
which  favour  0'''?3n.  Whether  it  be  rendered  Bonds,  or,  more  abstractly. 
Union  or  Unity,  is  not  of  consequence.  On  the  use  of  the  pi.  as  an  ab- 
stract noun,  see  Ges.  5i«.  "■  R.  (*). — jNxn  ns<  nyiNi]  This,  at  first  sight, 
seems  a  useless  repetition,  but  on  closer  examination  it  will  be  found  to  be 
a  justifiable  literary  expedient.  The  first  time  So  I  fed,  etc.  looks  back- 
ward to  V.  <;  here  it  serves  as  an  introduction  to  v.  *. — 8.  inDNi]  Rd.,  with 
20  Kenn.  mss.,  n^n3Ni. — ana]  The  masc.  for  the  fem.  sf.,  because,  as  the 
writer  proceeds,  he  loses  sight  of  the  figure.  See  du'bj,  and  in  v.  »  oaa. 
— n^nj]  'Air.,  the  a'^nac  of  Pr.  2021  being  an  error  for  r'^r^z'c.  Geiger  rds. 
nSya.  citing  Je.  3"  31";  but  in  3'*,  acc.  to  Gie.,  S'3  has  its  usual  sense, 
and  in  31"  the  original  was  nS;'j.     Griitz  suggests  n^p,  but,  since  the 


Syriac  has  preserved  a  derivative  of  Sna  with  the  meaning  nauseated, 
there  seems  to  be  no  need  of  changing  the  text. 

9.  nnon]  Moritura;  so  also  the  next  prtc,  vi^hile  the  third  must  be  ren- 
dered relictae.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "6-  2. — nc\s]  Comp.  the  c^n  of  v. «. — 10.  -iiDn'^] 
Better  -\Drh,  the  oriental  reading,  found  also  in  28  Kenn.  mss.  It  has  cir- 
cumstantial force,  like  the  pres.  prtc.  in  English.  Cf.  Ges.  ^"<-  ^-  ^-  *. 
— 'p-id]  The  pf.  in  the  sense  of  the  plupf.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  'oe- 1  c< ). — 11,  "jy  p] 
Rd.,  as  in  v.  ',  "jyj^. — ancu'n]  \'an  H.  suggests  onjrn,  which  would 
make  excellent  sense. — ■'Pn]  The  prtc,  like  the  tenses,  here  takes  a  sepa- 
rate pronominal  obj.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "«■  '. — 12.  i3n]  Always  milra' ,  except  in 
Jb.  6",  where  the  preceding  word  is  mil' el  and  the  one  following  a  mono- 
syllable. The  fem.,  ■>3n,  is  also  naturally  milra' .  Cf.  Ru.  3'^  On  the 
other  hand  nan  is  regularly  mil' el.  So  at  the  beginning  of  a  verse  in  Gn. 
n'Ex.  I'^jand  when  the  preceding  word  is  mil'el  (Gn.  ii^);  also  when  it  is 
the  first  word  in  a  speech,  even  if  the  preceding  word  is  milra'  (Gn.  ii< 
I  S.  i4^')'  The  only  case  in  which  it  has  a  disjunctive  is  Gn.  ii',  and  the 
only  one  in  which  it  is  itself  milra'  is  Gn.  29-',  where,  since  the  conditions 
are  otherwise  the  same  as  in  Gn.  11^  and  i  S.  14^^  the  position  of  its  ac- 
cent is  probably  due  to  the  following  n.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  «'•  2.  R.  2.  For  the 
rules  governing  the  accentuation  in  such  cases,  see  Nrd.  ^s"  '•. — nS  dni] 
Elliptical  condition.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  i59y?«.  R.  2. — iSin]  In  pause  for  iSin. — 
«1D3]  Strictly  an  appositive  of  a^Spu'  understood.  Cf.  Ges.  ^^'^i-  2  (n; 
134.  4_ — 13,  inoiStrn]  This  word  does  not,  as  the  ordinary  rendering  for 
it  might  suggest,  imply  contempt  or  any  related  emotion.  See  Gn.  21^, 
where  it  should  be  translated  bestow.  The  closest  parallel  to  the  present 
instance  is  found  in  2  Ch.  2410,  where  the  author  says  that,  in  response  to 
a  proclamation  of  King  Josiah,  "all  the  princes  and  all  the  people  gladly 
brought  in"  the  required  sum  "and  put  it  (o^S^'m)  into  the  chest."  Cf. 
Ju.  8^5  2  K.  4^1,  etc. — ■(svn]  This  word,  as  was  observed  in  the  comments, 
is  unintelligible  in  this  connection.  Yet  it  is  the  reading  that  underlies 
^  2  (t6  xw/'euT^ptoj'),  Aq.  {t^v  ir\6.(TTt}v),  and  B  {statuarium);  also  the 
citation  in  Mt.  2']^'^,  where  the  Evangelist  reports  that  the  money  returned 
by  Judas  was  given  eis  t6v  ayphv  toD  Kepa/xiws.  &,  however,  has  l^.^,  Lm^^ 
=  ixi!<n  n'3  (Ne.  10")  or  simply  -i^ixn  (Je.  38"),  the  treasury,  the  reading 
actually  found  in  Kenn.  530  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  Many  have  adopted 
the  opinion  that  this  was  what  the  prophet  intended  to  say,  but  they  are 
not  agreed  on  the  origin  of  the  present  reading.  Thus,  Maurer  claims 
that  it  is  not  the  text,  but  the  interpretation  of  it,  that  has  suffered,  ixvn 
itself  having  the  sense  of  treasury;  while  Eichhorn  and  others  contend 
that  the  original  reading  was  "ixrn,  and  explain  this  as  an  Aramaism  for 
ixiNH.  So  also  Hi.,  Ew.,  Bo.,  Sta.,  Eckardt,  et  al.  The  most  proba- 
ble view  is  that  -ixvn  is  simply  a  mistake  for  nsiKn,  a  '  having  been 
carelessly  substituted  for  an  n  and  the  vowel  of  the  last  syllable  changed 
to  that  of  the  familiar  word  for  potter.     So  Ort.,  Reu  ,  Now.,  Marti, 


314  ZECHARIAH 

GASm.,  Kit.,  el  al.  We.  does  not  accuse  the  scribes  of  tampering  with 
the  text,  but  he  says  that  "the  incorrect  reading  may  have  been  pur- 
posely retained  that  ">xrn  might  be  interpreted  as  meaning  potter.  If  the 
'rich  wage'  was  not  worthy  of  the  shepherd,  it  certainly  was  too  small  for 
Yahweh  and  the  sacred  treasury."  He  also  calls  attention  to  traces  of  a 
dual  interpretation  of  this  passage  in  Mt.  27^  «  ,  where  the  chief  priests 
decide  not  to  put  the  money  returned  by  Judas  into  "the  treasury,"  but 
expend  it  for  "the  potter's  field."  For  another  example  of  confusion  of 
N  with  %  see  J^n  for  jni  in  i  S.  22"8-  '^. — ii-jin  -nx]  For  ifivi  iiNn  the 
gen.  of  a  noun  being  used  instead  of  the  corresponding  adj.  Cf.  2  S. 
12"',  etc.;  Ges.  ^^  '^s-  2  <'). — \t>P'']  Since  the  subj.  can  hardly  be  the  prophet 
(GASm.),  rd.  r;-\p\  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  van  H.— a^r'^r]  A 
numeral,  whether  before  or  after  a  definite  noun  with  which  it  is  in  ap- 
position, wants  the  art.  Cf.  Ges.  ^i*".  3.  R.  2. — 'ji  nini  pij  idn  tiSb'ni] 
Constructio  pregnans  for  'ji  ^>S!:'K1  nin>  n>3  inN  N13NI.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  'i'-  *. 
The  noun  n'3,  therefore,  is  in  the  ace.  of  the  limit  of  motion  with  n'jn 
understood.  &  simplifies  the  sentence  by  transposing  the  phrases  no 
T\^7\''  and  nsiNn  Sn  and  inserting  the  prep.  2  before  the  former. — tjjh''] 
Rd.  nonS  as  in  v.  '". — ninxn]  05°,  ttiv  Kardcrxeffiv  =  nmN.i;  clearly  an 
error.  Most  Greek  mss.  have  Trjv  diadT^Krjv. — ^xnu'^]  (S'-,  'lepovaaX-fj^j.] 
An  interesting  reading  which  some  recent  critics  are  inclined  to  adopt. 
So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  It  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  the  original 
reading  unless  this  passage  can  be  shown  to  be  by  the  same  author  as 
chs.  12  and  14. 


(2)  A  foolish  shepherd  (ii*^''^  13'"^)- — The  prophet  is  here  di- 
rected to  assume  the  part  of  a  foolish  shepherd,  whose  treatment  of 
his  flock  is  briefly  described.  Then  Yahweh  breaks  into  a  denun- 
ciation of  the  shepherd,  followed  by  intimations  concerning  the 
process  of  purification  by  which  his  people  must  be  prepared  for 
final  deliverance. 

15.  The  words  with  which  the  prophet  represents  Yahweh  as 
addressing  him,  Take  thee  again  the  implements  0/  a  foolish  shep- 
herd, might  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  the  shepherd  now  to  be 
personated  is  the  same  as  the  one  in  the  preceding  paragraph ;  but 
this  can  hardly  be  the  case.  The  change  in  tone  that  reveals  it- 
self in  the  succeeding  verses  is  evidence  to  the  contrary.  The 
writer's  idea  would  be  more  clearly  expressed  by  a  paraphrase ;  for 
example,  Take  thee  again  the  implements  of  a  shepherd,  this  time 
to  play  the  part  of  a  foolish  one.     Among  these  implements  were 


II15-17     j3^-»  315 

a  staff  (i  S.  17^"),  a  pouch  {ibid.)  and  a  pipe  (Ju.  5^^).*  The  epi- 
thet foolish  in  the  Old  Testament  generally  implies  moral  ob- 
liquity. Thus,  in  Pr.  i^  the  persons  so  described  are  said  to 
"despise  wisdom  and  instruction."  What  it  means  when  applied 
to  rulers  is  clear  from  Is.  19"  ^^  where,  singularly  enough,  it  is  the 
princes  of  Egypt  who  are  so  characterised.  The  foolish  ruler  is 
one  who  is  blind  to  the  purposes  of  Yahweh,  and  helpless  in  the 
face  of  their  fulfilment.  The  one  here  meant  is  probably  Ptol- 
emy IV  (Philopator),  who  succeeded  his  father  Euergetes  in  222 
B.C.  His  reputation  is  unmatched  by  that  of  any  other  member 
of  the  Ptolemaic  dynasty.  The  Greek  historian  Polybius  de- 
scribes him  as  a  drunken  debauchee  who  was  not  only  worthless 
as  a  ruler,  but  a  constant  menace  to  the  prosperity  and  security 
of  his  country.f  The  Jews  accused  him  of  the  worst  excesses;  J 
also  of  trying  to  force  his  way  into  the  temple  at  Jerusalem, §  and, 
when  he  was  frustrated,  planning  a  wholesale  massacre  of  their 
countrymen  at  Alexandria.**  These  charges,  as  Mahaffy  believes, 
may  be  exaggerated,  but  even  he  admits  that  the  king  must  have 
given  the  Jews  cause  to  hate  him,f  f  and  that  fact  is  sufficient  to  ac- 
count for  the  tone  of  this  passage. — 16.  Yahweh  himself  explains 
what  is  meant  by  the  instructions  given.  Lo,  I  will  raise  up  a  shep- 
herd in  the  land.  The  clause  is  predictive  only  in  form.  The 
verses  that  follow  show  that  the  writer  is  dealing  with  actual  con- 
ditions. He  does  not  repeat  the  adjective  foolish,  but  substi- 
tutes for  it  a  description  of  the  administration  of  the  reigning  king. 
It  is  marked  by  negligence  alternating  with  cruelty.  The  language 
used,  which  is  consistently  pastoral,  is  largely  borrowed  from  Ez. 
34'  ^•.  Here,  however,  only  four  cases  are  enumerated.  First 
comes  that  of  the  one  that  is  being  destroyed,  for  example,  by  wild 
beasts.  It  the  shepherd  should,  but  will  not,  visit  bringing  as- 
sistance. The  second  is  the  one  that  is  wandering;  yet  he  will  not 
seek  it.  The  third  is  the  one  that  is  maimed,  lit.,  broken,  having  met 
with  an  accident,  perhaps,  while  scrambling  over  a  rocky  pasture. 

*  It  is  a  ridiculous  fancy  of  some  of  the  commentators,  ancient  and  modem,  that  the  imple- 
ments of  this  shepherd  differed  from  those  of  the  one  in  the  other  parable.  So  Cyr.,  Lowth, 
Moore,  et  al. 

t  Hisl.,  V,  34.  t  3  Mac.  2».  §  3  Mac.  i'"  »  . 

**  3  Mac.  3'  »•.  tt  HE.,  iv,  145. 


3l6  ZECHARIAH 

It  he  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  heal.  The  condition  of  the  fourth 
is  doubtful.  The  text  reads  one  thai  standeth,  perhaps  surviveth. 
One  would  expect  either  the  one  that  starveth  or  the  one  that  is 
hungry,  since  the  prophet  completes  the  sentence  by  adding,  he 
•will  not  nourish,  provide  with  food.  The  last  clause,  also,  in  its 
present  form  is  only  partially  intelligible.  The  Syriac  Version 
seems  to  have  preserved  the  original  reading,  the  flesh  of  the  fattest 
will  he  eat,  atul  their  legs  will  he  gnaw ;  a  picture  which  excellently 
portrays  the  greedy  policy  Ptolemy  IV  appears  to  have  followed 
toward  the  Jews.     Cf  Ez.  34^. 

17.  From  this  point  onward  the  discourse  is  really  predictive. 
The  form,  also,  is  changed,  the  remaining  verses  constituting  a 
poem  in  four  stanzas,  each  of  which  has  three  double  lines.  The 
prophet  begins  by  pronouncing  a  woe  upon  the  shepherd  already 
described,  who  is  now,  however,  called  my  foolish  shepherd.  On 
the  pronoun,  see  13'.  His  offence  is  that  he  leaveth  the  flock.  The 
instrumentality  through  which  he,  or  rather  the  king  he  represents, 
is  to  be  punished  is  the  sword,  that  is,  war.  The  verse  is  modelled 
after  Je.  50^  ^•,  where  another  writer  invokes  the  sword  against  the 
Chaldeans.*  The  writer  seems  also  to  have  had  in  mind  an  oracle 
by  Ezekiel  against  the  ruler  of  Egypt  in  his  time.  "Son  of  man," 
that  prophet  represents  Yahweh  as  saying  to  him,  "I  have  broken 
the  arm  of  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt."  Cy.  Ez.  3o'\  Here  the  reign- 
ing king  (Ptolemy  IV)  is  threatened  with  a  blow  upon  his  arm.  The 
interpretation  of  the  figure  is  found  in  Ez.  30^^.  The  arm  of  the 
king  is  smitten  to  "cause  the  sword  to  fall  out  of  his  hand,"  that  is, 
to  render  him  and  his  country  defenceless  against  their  enemies. 
Nor  is  this  the  extent  of  the  penalty.  Yahweh  will  smite  with  the 
same  sword  his  right  eye,  this  being  another  means  of  disabling 
men  for  service  in  war,  since  the  loss  of  the  right  eye  made  a  shield 
of  little  value.  The  result  will  be  complete:  his  arm  shall  wither 
away,  and  his  right  eye  shall  be  utterly  darkened. — 13^.  The  rea- 
sons for  connecting  this  and  the  next  two  verses  with  the  eleventh 
chapter  have  been  discussed  in  the  Introduction,  ^ee  pp.  253/. 
The  same  subject  is  continued.     Yahweh  summons  the  sword, 

*  In  Je.  50"  IH  has  an'n,  a  drought,  but,  as  &  has  the  sword,  and  d  originally  bad  the  same 
reading,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Hebrew  author  wrote  3"<n. 


with  which  he  has  just  threatened  the  foolish  shepherd,  to  awake 
and  perform  its  office.  Cf.  Je.  47^.  Of  the  person  against  whom 
it  is  incited  he  now  uses  a  Hebrew  word  that  may  be  rendered,  ac- 
cording to  the  vocaHsation,  either  my  fellow  or  my  shepherd;  but  it 
is  not  difficult  to  decide  in  which  of  these  two  senses  the  author  in- 
tended it  to  be  taken .  The  former  has  in  its  favour  the  proximity 
of  the  synonymous  expression,  my  companion.  The  latter,  how- 
ever, is  preferred  because,  among  other  reasons,  (i)  the  person  in 
question  is  really  the  shepherd;  and  (2)  without  doubt  is  so  called 
in  this  verse.  There  is  no  objection  to  the  expression  in  itself,  for 
in  Is.  44^^  Yahweh  applies  it  to  Cyrus,  and,  since  the  Hebrews  be- 
lieved that  all  rulers  were  under  the  control  and  direction  of  their 
God,  they  could  apply  it  to  a  king,  even  if  he  were  oppressing  them 
instead  of  relieving  them  from  oppression.  Here  the  king  of 
Egypt  is  so  called  by  virtue  of  his  office,  because,  in  spite  of  his  un- 
worthiness,  he  is  still  in  a  sense  a  shepherd,  and  as  such  an  asso- 
ciate of  the  Shepherd  of  Israel.  This  fact,  however,  does  not  pro- 
tect him  from  deserved  retribution,  or,  unfortxmately,  his  subjects 
from  the  consequences  of  his  unfaithfulness.  Smite  the  Shepherd, 
says  Yahweh,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scattered.  The  sheep,  of 
course,  are  the  subjects  of  the  recreant  king,  especially,  as  will  ap- 
pear, the  Chosen  People.  Cf.  Ez.  34^  ^•.  /  will  also,  Yahweh  con- 
tinues, draw  back  my  hand,  not,  as  some*  have  tried  to  show,  to 
spare,  but,  as  the  preposition  against  clearly  indicates,  to  smite, 
the  little  ones,  the  lambs  of  the  flock,  representing  the  lowly  men 
and  women  as  well  as  the  children  slain  or  dragged  into  slavery 
by  a  brutal  soldiery.  Cf.  Je.  49^°  50^. — 8.  The  result  to  the  Jews 
of  this  dreadful  infliction  will  be  that  throughout  the  land  two-thirds 
of  them  that  are  in  it  shall  be  cut  off  and  die.  The  work  might  be 
accomplished  in  a  brief  time,  perhaps  in  a  single  campaign.  This, 
however,  is  not  the  author's  idea.  He  makes  Yahweh  say  that, 
after  the  greater  part  of  the  inhabitants  have  been  destroyed  or  de- 
ported, the  remainder  must  continue  to  suffer.  Although  a  third 
shall  remain  in  the  land,  this  third  will  have  to  pass  through  the 
fire;  fire  being  here,  as  often  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  a 
figure  for  affliction.     Cf.  3^  Is.  43^,  etc. — 9.  Thus  far  there  has 

*  So  Mau.,  Ke.,  Hd.,  Pres.,  Wri..  el  al. 


3l8  ZECHARIAH 

been  no  sign  of  mercy  on  the  part  of  Yahweh  for  his  suffering  peo- 
ple. Now,  however,  it  appears  that  the  fire  to  which  they  are  to 
be  exposed  is  not  the  utterly  destructive  element  of  Ez.  15*  ^-j  but 
the  purifying  instrument  of  Ez.  22'^  ^^  I  will  smelt  them,  he  says, 
abandoning  his  original  figure  for  another,  as  silver  is  smelted,  and 
try  tliem  as  gold  is  tried.*  The  desired  result  will  follow ;  they  shall 
call  upon  my  name,  and  I  will  answer  them.f  Thus,  as  was  prom- 
ised in  10^,  they  will  be  as  if  they  had  never  been  rejected.  Then 
Yahweh  will  say.  They  are  my  people,  and  they  shall  say,  Yahweh, 
my  God.  In  other  words,  they  will  come  from  this  furnace  of 
affliction  to  renew  the  covenant  Yahweh  made  with  them  when 
they  escaped  from  Egypt.J 

The  shepherd  of  the  last  three  verses  is  by  most  exegetes  iden- 
tified with  the  Messiah. §  This  interpretation  is,  of  course,  for- 
bidden, if  these  verses  are  a  continuation  of  ch.  11.  It  is  not 
warranted  by  anything  in  them,  even  when  taken  by  themselves, 
for  the  expressions  my  shepherd  and  my  companion  must  be  inter- 
preted in  the  light  of  the  context,  from  which  it  is  clear  that  the 
person  so  designated  is  the  object  of  Yahweh's  indignation.  The 
words  quoted  from  v.  '  by  Jesus,**  therefore,  were  not  in  a  strict 
sense — he  does  not  say  they  were — fulfilled  in  his  arrest  and  the 
dispersion  of  his  disciples,  but  here  again  an  incident  suggests  a 
passage  of  which  it  serves  as  an  illustration. 

15.  '«Srj  Rd.,  with  <&'B  B,  ^^2. — ^Sik]  Here  only;  probably  a  copyist's 
mistake  for  Smn. — 16.  nnnsjn]  Rd.,  with  4  Kenn.  mss.  d>,  mnjjn, 
the  sg.  as  in  the  co-ordinated  cases.  So  We.,  Kui.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 
■^yj]  The  word  is  certainly  corrupt,  but  it  is  not  so  clear  how  it  should  be 
emended.  Oort  suggests  nmjn,  the  word  used  in  a  similar  connection  in 
Ez.  34<,  and  (6  (rd  ia-Kopirlafitvov)  and  13  {dispersum)  favour  this  read- 
ing. So  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  An  objection  to  it  is  that  it  does  not  suffi- 
ciently resemble  nyj  to  account  for  the  substitution  of  the  one  for  the 
other.  The  same  objection  cannot  be  made  to  nyjn,  which  suits  the  con- 
nection as  well  as  the  other  and  has  the  support  of  &  ( — t^)o )  and  vH. 
(iSa'^a'Ni).    So  van  H.    Less  attractive  is  miyjn,  one  of  the  alternatives 

♦  CI.  Is.  i»  4810  Mai.  3'  '•.  t  CI.  Is.  s89  6s2<  Je.  29",  etc. 

t  CI.  Ho.  2^«3,  but  especially  Ez.  i6«  3723-  ". 

§  So  Jcr.,  Cyr.,  Thcodorct,  Lu.,  Sanctius,  k  Lap.,  Dru.,  Marck,  Dathc,   Lowth,   Burger, 
Kc.  Klie.,  Hd.,  Wri.,  el  al. 
*♦  Mt.  2(?  Mk.  14". 


suggested  by  Kit.  The  original,  then,  was  probably  ^'j:^,  or,  better,  on 
the  authority  of  33  mss.  ($  S»,  n>'jm. — xdt']  ^  adds  ]jb]^  \i  -ouiirsjo, 
which,  ace.  to  Sebok,  is  a  duplicate  rendering  for  the  preceding 
clause. — n^mn]  Now.  suggests  nSnjn,  but  the  context  requires  naj?in, 
or  an  equivalent,  with  a  connective. — pns"'  in^Diiji]  Rd.,  with  g>,  p''y-\3i 
pi;". — 17.  ''>i]  The  word  is  usually  explained  as  a  cstr.  with  i  com- 
paginis.  This  explanation  takes  for  granted  that  the  next  word  is  orig- 
inal in  the  text.  There  is  room  for  doubt  on  this  point.  The  expression 
used  in  v.  '=  is  'Sis  njji  or,  better,  S'lix  n>n.  So  Houb.,  Bla.  Now,  while 
it  would  be  natural  for  the  writer  to  vary  his  language  to  some  ex- 
tent, he  would  hardly  abandon  a  thought  that  was  the  key-note  of  the 
prophecy.  Nor  did  he,  if  the  testimony  of  S*  (5  is  of  any  value,  for  they 
seem  to  have  had  a  text  with  Siisn.  If,  however,  they  had  this  reading, 
they  must  have  had  nyifor  v,  as  have  several  mss.,  or,  if  they  had  the 
latter  and  ignored  its  form,  the  ending  was  neither  i  compaginis,  nor,  as 
some  mss.  and  edd.  point  it,  the  termination  of  the  cstr.  pi.,  but  the  sf. 
of  the  first  sg.  as  in  13^  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  van  H.  It  is  possi- 
ble that  the  original  reading  was  n;-\,  and  that  it  was  changed  to  •'>n 
through  the  influence  of  13  ^ — 'Jt;']  The  ending  is  not  the  termination  of 
the  cstr.  pi.,  as  (S>  understood  it,  and  as  it  is  pointed  in  some  mss.  and 
edd.,  but  i  compaginis.  Cf.  Ges.  §  so .  3  (« )_  ^  renders  the  word  ^  "  ^  *- • 
and  oms.  3nn,  thus  getting  to  whose  arm  I  have  left  the  flock. — 3in]  Not 
2in,  drought,  as  Dru.,  Bla.,  Ort.,  Pres.,  Sta.,  Rub.,  Kui.,  et  al.,  point  it; 
but,  as  in  M.,  31.n,  sword,  (i)  It  is  so  rendered  in  (I  U  ul.  (2)  In 
13',  where  this  prophecy  is  continued,  the  sword  is  evidently  intended. 
(3)  In  Je.  50'',  on  which  this  passage  is  based,  ain,  as  has  already 
been  noted,  must  be  an  error  for  ain.  After  this  word  ^s^  seems  to 
have  been  lost. — 13'.  mjj]  With  the  accent  on  the  ultima.  Cf.  9^;  Ges. 
§  72.  7.  R.  3, — ^j;-,]  Add  to  the  reasons  for  retaining  M  given  in  the  com- 
ments that  9  Kenn.  mss.  have  •'>'n. — tiicj?]  Always  elsewhere  (11  t.  in 
Lv.)  concrete,  and  in  Lv.  19I'  clearly  masc.  Here,  therefore,  doubtless 
an  appositive  of  i^j,  the  genus  with  the  species.  Cf.  i  K.  7",  etc.;  Ges. 
§  131.  J  c«);  Ko.  ^290d. — 's  ',  Dxj]  An  addition  that  disturbs  the  measure  and, 
on  the  restoration  of  this  and  the  following  verses  to  their  original  place 
after  11",  becomes  superfluous.  So  Marti.  Kit.  removes  the  clause  to 
the  end  of  the  verse, — where  there  is  still  less  room  for  it. — in]  The  word, 
is  generally  treated  as  an  imv.  It  is  so  rendered  in  Vrss.  If,  however,  it 
is  an  imv.,  it  must  be  co-ordinate  with  my  and  should  have  the  fem.  end- 
ing. Since  it  has  not  the  ending,  and  is  followed  by  the  pf.  with  1,  some 
have  claimed  that  the  original  must  have  been  n^s".  Cf.  Mt.  26".  So, 
among  the  older  exegetes,  New.,  Bla.,  Hd.,  and  among  the  later,  We., 
Kui.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  This  is  not  entirely  satisfactory.  Perhaps  for 
^^?  ^\7^  one  should  read  mon,  the  inf.  cstr.  for  the  abs.,  as  a  substitute 
for  the  finite  vb.,  as  in  2  K.  3='.     Cf.  Ges.«  "•  «■  ^  ■  '==  "3-  *  <'^'.     Note 


320  ZECHARIAH 

that  HN  is  omitted  before  n\ — j^'XIdpi]  For  no(>)xn)Bni.  On  the  form, 
see  Ges.  ^"-  '■  '^^  ^f'"-;  on  the  construction,  i*'-  '. — D>nij:xn]  The  word, 
with  the  Massoretic  vocalisation,  is  djr.,  and  apparently  indefensible.  Rd., 
with  05 B,  a'-i;;xn.  ^aqi-  have  toi>s  iroin^vas  /it/cpoi>j,  but  iroifi^vas is  merely 
interpretive.  So  also  the  Vl\Ss,  shepherds,  of  &,  and  the  n^j^j.^,  un- 
derlings,  of  S. — 8.  ynsn  ^22]  (S'^Q^,  ^v  t^  17/u^pi?  eKelvr];  a  mistake,  since, 
with  this  reading  na  would  have  no  antecedent.  CS'-  has  both. — Zi-yc'  -d] 
In  Dt.  21"  2  K.  2'  a  double  portion,  here  two-thirds;  construed  as  a  collec- 
tive.— i>'U']  Rd.,  with  (6  B  ft,  U'ui.  Kit.  omits. — .^•'U-''^u-ni]  With  the 
art.  because  the  third  that  is  left  is  a  definite  portion. — "^.-v]  The  accent 
is  thrown  back  before  the  following  monosyllable.  The  original,  how- 
ever, was  probably,  as  appears  from  v.  '",  ^'\^r^\  Cf.  Ges.  ^'"-  '  <'^). 
— 9.  iD^n  nx]  Note  the  use  of  pn,  showing  that  the  obj.  of  the  inf.,  when 
a  noun,  is  an  ace. — xi^]  The  sg.  for  the  pi.;  perhaps  a  reminiscence  of 
Ho.  2"/23,  where  the  antecedent  is  0>. — \-ncN]  Rd.,  with  Ho.  2"/:3  (g  ^ 
\-nrNi.  So  Marti,  GASm.,  Gins.,  Kit. — nirr]  Wanting  in  some  mss., 
but  required  by  the  construction.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Ho.  2=5/23, 
where  ^"iSn  is  a  voc,  it  is  properly  omitted. 

2.     The  future  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  (i2*-i3*  14). 

This  division  of  the  book  of  Zechariah  has  a  title  of  its  own. 
In  the  Massoretic  text  it  reads,  A  n  oracle  of  the  word  of  Yahweh 
concerning  Israel.  The  subject,  however,  is  not  Israel,  nor  is 
the  name  so  much  as  mentioned  from  this  point  to  the  end  of 
the  book.  For  this  reason  it  is  necessary  to  substitute  for  Israel 
the  more  suitable  name  Jerusalem,  or  better,  for  concerning,  to 
read  to,  as  in  Mai.  i*,  thus  making  the  title  introduce  a  message 
to  the  Jewish  world.  There  are  two  well-marked  sections. 
The  first  deals  with 


a.      THE  JEWS  IN   THEIR   INTERNAL  RELATIONS    (l2*-I3^). 

This  in  turn  may  be  subdivided  into  three  paragraphs,  the  topic 
of  the  first  being 

(i)  A  power  in  Palestine  (12*"*). — The  Jews  in  the  strength  of 
Yahweh  triumph  over  their  enemies,  and  dwell  safely  under  his 
protection. 

1.  The  paragraph  opens  with  the  briefest  possible  annoimce- 
ment  of  a  divine  oracle,  Saith  Yahweh.     This  is  followed  by  a 


12  321 

couplet  in  the  same  style,  and  with  substantially  the  same  content, 
as  Is.  42^  117/0  spread  out. heaven,  etc.  Cf.  Am.  4^^  5*  ^•.  The 
objecf^  such  descriptions  of  the  divine  power  is  to  impress  the 
hearer  or  reader  with  the  abiUty  of  Yahweh  to  do  the  thing  prom- 
ised or  threatened.  On  the  text,  see  the  critical  notes. — 2.  In  this 
case  it  is  a  promise  that  has  to  be  reinforced.  /  will  make  Jeru- 
salem a  bowl  to  cause  reeling,  says  Yahweh,  to  all  the  peoples  round. 
The  figure  by  which  wine  is  made  to  represent  the  wrath  of  Yah- 
weh is  a  familiar  one;*  but  in  most  cases  nothing  is  made  of  the 
instrument  by  which  Yahweh  administers  the  draught.  In  Je. 
51^,  however,  Babylon  is  called  "a  golden  cup  in  the  hand  of  Yah- 
weh." In  this  case  it  is  Jerusalem  through  which  he  purposes  to 
make  drink  of  his  wrath  all  the  peoples  round.  The  peoples  the 
writer  has  in  mind  are  so  designated,  not  because  they  are  gathered 
with  hostile  intent  about  the  Jewish  capital,  but  because  they  in- 
habit the  regions  adjacent  to  that  which  the  Jews  occupy.  The 
picture  here  presented,  therefore,  is  very  like  that  of  Is.  11",  where 
it  is  promised  that  Judah  and  Ephraim  united  "shall  pounce  upon 
the  shoulders  of  the  Philistines,"  "despoil  the  children  of  the  East," 
"lay  hands  upon  Edom  and  Moab,"  and  bring  it  to  pass  that  "the 
sons  of  Ammon  shall  obey  them."  If,  however,  this  was  the 
thought  of  the  author,  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  he  would  im- 
mediately entertain  the  prospect  of  an  extended  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
or,  if  he  did,  would  use  the  remaining  words  of  the  verse  as  ordina- 
rily translated.  Take,  for  example,  the  rendering  of  RV.,  and  upon 
(marg.  against)  Judah,  also,  shall  it  be  in  the  siege  against  Jerusalein^ 
which,  so  far  as  it  is  at  all  intelligible,  contradicts  the  context. 
Nor  have  the  attempts  to  emend  resulted  in  anything  more  satis- 
factory. A  defensible  rendering  is  suggested  by  9",  where  Yahweh 
is  represented  as  appearing  over  his  people  in  battle.  If  the  writer 
intended  to  express  the  same  thought  here,  the  clause  should  read, 
over  Judah  will  he  (Yahweh)  be  in  the  siege  against  Jerusalem. 
This  translation,  however,  is  satisfactory  only,  as  will  be  explained, 
on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  clause  is  a  gloss  inserted  by  some 

*  Cf.  Je.  2515  s-  Ez.  ;3"  *f.  Hb.  2>5  '-,  etc.  The  last  passage  has  generally  been  misunder- 
stood and  employed  as  an  argument  against  social  drinking.  We.  translates  it,  "Woe  to  the 
one  that  giveth  the  others  to  drink  from  the  cup  of  his  wrath,"  etc. 


322  ZECHARIAH 

one  who  thought,  as  many*  have  since  done,  that  the  situation  is 
the  same  here  as  in  ch.  14.! 

3.  The  expression,  and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  occurs  no  fewer  than 
eleven  times  in  this  and  the  following  chapters;  four  times  J  alone 
and  seven  times  §  with  the  addition  of  in  that  day.  The  latter  is 
used  alone  ten  times;  seven  times**  at  the  beginning  and  three 
times  ft  elsewhere  in  the  sentence.  The  two  together  may  there- 
fore fairly  be  regarded  as  characteristic  of  these  chapters.  Here 
they  introduce  a  second  figure.  Says  Yahweh,  /  will  make  Jerusa- 
lem a  heavy  stone  to  all  the  peoples ;  the  peoples  being  presumably  the 
same  as  in  the  preceding  verse.  The  application  of  the  figure  im- 
mediately follows:  All  that  lift  on  it  shall  tear  themselves  grievously ; 
which  means  that,  just  as  one,  handling  a  heavy  stone,  tears  one's 
hands  on  its  rugged  surface,  so  shall  they  suffer  who  attempt  vio- 
lence on  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants.  The  verb  here  used  occurs 
elsewhere  only  in  Leviticus,  and  there  only  of  the  practice,  for- 
bidden by  the  Hebrew  law,  of  mutilating  the  body  in  token  of 
mourning.  CJ.  Lv.  19-^  21^.  This  circumstance  has  led  Nowack 
and  others  to  question  the  genuineness  of  the  clause ;  but  unjustly, 
for  (i)  an  injury  resulting  from  a  voluntary  action  can  surely  be 
said  to  be  self-inflicted,  and  (2)  the  same  word  in  Assyrian  %%  is 
actually  used  to  denote  exposure  to  wounds  in  battle.  There  are, 
however,  good  reasons  for  suspecting  the  originality  of  the  latter 
half  of  the  verse,  chief  among  which  are:  (i)  that  it  is  of  the  nature 
of  a  parenthesis;  (2)  that  this  is  not  the  place  for  the  statement 
made;  and  (3)  that,  Hke  v."  ^,  it  produces  a  discord  by  anticipating 
the  leading  thought  of  ch.  14,  a  discord  that  is  only  increased  by 
interpreting  there  shall  be  gathered  against  it  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  as  meaning  that  the  stone  in  question  is  a  weight,  and  that 
the  figure  is  derived  from  the  lifting  contests  which,  when  this 
passage  was  written,  had  recently  been  introduced  at  Jerusalem. 

So  We.,  Marti,  et  al.     According  to  2  Mac.  4'=,  the  high  priest  Jason,  by 
permission  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  built  a  gymnasium  and  introduced  Greek 

♦  So  Sta.,  Now.,  Marti,  et  al. 

t  For  other  glosses  of  like  origin,  see  vv.  '■  <•  *. 

X  13'  14'-  '••  ".  §  1-''  '  i3--*  14'- '•  ■'- 

♦♦  124.  «.  8.  II     ,31     ,45.  20.  ^  .ft   I2«    14'-  ='• 

%X  Cf.  Del.,  Ass.  HatidwdrUrbuch,  art.  ^aliru. 


12'-'  323 

exercises  at  Jerusalem.  Cf.  Josephus,  Anl.,  xii,  5,  i.  Jerome,  commenting 
on  this  verse,  says  that  in  his  day  there  was  preserved  "an  old  custom  accord- 
ing to  which,  in  the  villages  and  towns  and  fortresses,  round  stones  of  great 
weight  are  provided  on  which  the  youths  are  accustomed  to  practice,  raising 
the  weight  according  to  their  strength,  some  to  their  knees,  others  to  the  navel, 
others  to  the  shoulders  and  the  head,  but  some,  to  display  the  greatness  of 
their  strength,  with  raised  and  joined  hands  over  the  head."  In  Athens,  too, 
he  says,  he  saw  in  the  citadel  near  the  statue  of  Athene  a  brass  globe  of  great 
weight  which  he  himself  was  not  able  to  move. 


4.  The  omission  of  the  last  clause  of  v.  ^  relieves  an  exegetical 
difficulty,  but  it  leaves  the  relations  between  the  Jews  and  their 
neighbours  unchanged.  The  latter  are  still  hostile,  but  the  former, 
with  Yahweh  to  help  them,  are  confident  of  deliverance  in  any 
emergency.  He  is  more  than  a  match  for  any  force  that  can  be 
brought  against  them.  This  is  what  is  meant  by  representing  him 
as  defying  the  cavalry  of  the  surrounding  peoples.  The  thought  is 
the  same  as  that  in  10^,  but  the  terms  here  used  are  borrowed  from 
Dt.  28^^.  He  says,  /  will  smite  every  horse  with  terror,  and  its 
rider  with  madness.  The  rest  of  the  verse  consists  of  two  clauses, 
the  first  being  in  antithetic,  while  the  second  is  in  synonymous, 
parallelism  with  the  one  just  quoted.  The  omission  of  one  of 
them,  so  far  from  weakening,  would  decidedly  strengthen  the 
passage.  Marti  thinks  it  is  the  latter  that  has  been  added;  but, 
if  this  were  the  case,  would  it  not  have  been  inserted  next  to  the 
one  it  was  intended  to  complete?  This  seems  a  reasonable  view 
of  the  matter.  Hence  it  is  better  to  omit  the  parenthetical  clause, 
htt  upon  the  house  of  Judah  will  I  open  my  eyes,  as  an  accretion, 
and  thus  bring  the  clauses  before  and  after  it  into  their  natural 
relation. 

5.  The  effect  of  this  display  of  Yahweh's  favouring  power  will 
be  to  inspire  his  people  with  renewed  confidence  in  him.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Massoretic  text  it  is  the  chiefs  or  leaders  who  give 
expression  to  this  feeling;  but,  since  in  v. "  the  word  so  rendered 
should  apparently  be  trsLns\a.ted  families,  it  is  probable  that  the 
proper  rendering  for  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  is,  Then  shall  the 
families  of  Judah  say  in  their  hearts.  These  rural  Jews,  if  there  is 
strife  and  bitterness  between  them  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
as  some  have  inferred  from  v.  ^,  ought  to  say  something  reflecting 


324  ZECHARIAH 

unfavourably  upon  the  latter.  There  is  nothing  of  the  kind.  The 
speech  they  make,  so  far  from  indicating  hostility,  or  even  disre- 
spect, seems  the  natural  expression  for  admiration  or  sympathy. 
This  is  explained  by  the  preceding  verses.  It  is  as  if  the  author 
had  said.  When  the  Jews  of  the  country  see  Jerusalem  spreading 
confusion  and  misfortune  among  the  surrounding  peoples,  they  will 
recognise  the  hand  of  Yahweh  in  these  results,  and  put  the  thought 
into  words  similar  to  those  quoted.  There  is  strength  for  the  inhab- 
itants of  Jerusalem  in  Yahweh  of  Hosts  their  God.  On  the  text, 
see  the  critical  notes. — 6.  This  reflection  will  react  upon  those  who 
make  it,  and  stimulate  them  to  rivalry  with  their  urban  brethren. 
It  will  then  be  possible  for  Yahweh  to  use  them,  and  that  effectu- 
ally, against  their  nearest  adversaries.  This  thought  is  presented 
in  a  double  figure,  /  will  make  the  families  of  Jiidali,  he  says,  like 
a  pan  of  fire  among  wood,  and  like  a  torch  among  bundled  graiti. 
The  second  of  these  similes  is  one  that  appealed  strongly  to  the 
Hebrews,  for  they  knew  what  it  meant  when  a  fire  was  started  dur- 
ing the  dry  season.*  So  destructive  and  troublesome  will  Jerusa- 
lem be  to  all  the  peoples  round.'\  There  follows  a  reminder  of 
Is.  9'®/^",  they  shall  devour  to  the  right  and  to  the  left.  Meanwhile, 
Jerusalem, — and  this  clause  seems  to  have  been  added  to  prevent 
the  reader  from  suspecting  the  existence  of  any  hostility  between 
the  city  and  the  country, — untouched  by  the  fierce  .struggle  raging 
about  it,  shall  still  abide  in  its  place,  the  inviolate  and  inviolable 
centre  and  stronghold  of  the  Chosen  People.J 

If.  At  this  point  there  is  a  noticeable  change  in  the  form  of 
discourse,  which  is  carried  through  the  next  verse.  Throughout 
these  two  verses  the  writer  speaks,  not  for,  but  about  Yahweh. 
This  fact  is  taken  by  Marti  as  an  indication  of  difference  of  author- 
ship. But  the  same  thing  occurs  four  or  five  times  in  chs.  9  and 
io,§  and  Marti  himself  says  in  his  comments  on  10^  that  "the 
change  from  the  first  to  the  third  person  should  not  excite  surprise 
in  the  case  of  our  prophet,  who,  without  hesitation,  .sometimes  in- 
troduces Yahweh  as  speaking  and  sometimes  speaks  in  his  own 

*  See  Ex.  22*/«  Ju.  15*  "•  2  S.  i4*>  Is.  10''  '•. 

t  For  other  figures  of  like  import,  sec  Mi.  s'^  Is.  41"  '•. 

t  Cf.  14"  Jo.  4/33).  J  d.  9-  '*  io»-  ». 


12^-^  325 

person."  Nor  does  the  content  of  these  verses,  as  compared  with 
that  of  the  preceding  context,  warrant  one  in  treating  them  as  an 
addition  to  the  original  writing.  True,  some  prominence  is  given 
to  Judah  in  distinction  from  Jerusalem  in  v.  '';  but  that  is  evi- 
dently due  to  an  error  in  the  Massoretic  te.xt,  and  it  is  neutralised 
in  the  next  verse  by  special  mention  of  the  house  of  David  and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  capital.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  to  adopt 
Marti's  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  passage,  or,  if  the  last  clause 
of  V.  ®  is  an  accretion,  to  suppose  with  him  that  v.  ^  originally  pre- 
ceded V.  ^. — 7.  The  omission  of  the  last  clause  of  v.  "  brings  this 
verse  into  close  connection  with  the  preceding  predictions  on  the 
same  subject.  The  writer  puts  what  he  still  has  to  say  into  a  gen- 
eral prophecy,  saying  that  Yahweh  will  help  the  tents  of  Jiidah,  the 
surrounding  country  in  distinction  from  the  capital,  rvoi first,  as  the 
Massoretic  text  reads,  but,  as  the  great  versions  have  it,  as  at  the 
fi,rst.  This  is  evidently  a  reference  to  the  period  in  the  history  of 
Judah  when  Hebron  and  Bethlehem  were  as  important  as  Jerusa- 
lem, and  the  men  of  Judah,  under  the  leadership  of  David  and  his 
lieutenants,  were  the  controlling  power  in  Palestine.  It  is  the  will 
of  Yahweh  that  this  golden  age  be  restored,  and  he  grants  the 
needed  help  that  tlie  glory  of  the  house  of  David,  or  the  glory  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  may  not  exceed  that  of  the  rest  of  Judah; 
or,  to  put  it  positively,  that  the  glory  of  rural  Judah  may  equal  that 
of  the  court  and  the  capital.  This  verse,  therefore,  so  far  from 
betraying  any  jealousy  or  partisanship,  seems  to  have  been  in- 
spired by  the  most  commendable  impartiality. — 8.  Having  thus 
established  a  standard,  the  prophet  returns  to  the  city,  that  he  may 
impress  upon  the  reader  how  much  he  means  by  it.  He  begins 
with  In  that  day,  the  oft-repeated  phrase  by  which,  in  this  and  the 
following  chapters,  a  new  subject  is  usually  introduced.  The 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  are  made  the  starting-point  for  the  fur- 
ther development  of  his  theme.  Yahweh,  he  says,  will  protect  the 
inhabitants,  not  inhabitant,  of  Jerusalem.  Cf.  Is.  31^  '.  This 
thought  is  not  inconsistent  with  that  of  the  preceding  context,  for, 
as  at  once  appears,  the  protection  afforded  will  be  of  the  kind  that 
stimulates  energy  rather  than  encourages  supineness.  Under  the 
a?gis  of  the  Almighty  there  will  be  so  remarkable  a  rejuvenation, 


326  ZECHARIAH 

that  the  weakest  among  them  in  that  day  shall  he  as  David,  and  the 
house  of  David  like  God.*  Wellhausen  and  others  interpret  the 
house  of  David  as  a  designation  for  the  government  at  Jerusalem. 
There  certainly  is  no  warrant  for  such  an  interpretation  in  Ps. 
12  2^^,  where  the  poet  is  recalling  the  past  glory,  not  describing  the 
present  condition,  of  Jerusalem.  On  the  other  hand,  this  reference 
to  tlie  house  of  David  does  not  mean  that  a  member  of  the  family 
still  ruled  in  Judah  when  this  passage  was  written.  It  does,  how- 
ever, like  V.  ^^,  indicate  that  he  had  descendants  in  Palestine,  and 
that  they  still  cherished  hopes  of  the  restoration  of  the  dynasty. — 
At  first  sight  the  added  phrase,  like  the  angel  of  Yahweh  before 
them,  looks  like  a  gloss  by  some  one  "very  jealous  for  Yahweh," 
who,  like  the  Greek  translators  of  Ps.  8,  was  offended  that  men 
should  be  compared  to  the  Deity;  but  perhaps  it  is  merely  an  al- 
lusion to  the  Exodus  intended  more  clearly  to  define  the  relation 
of  the  house  of  David  to  the  rest  of  Judah.     Cf.  14''"'. 

1.  S;']  This  prep,  in  such  a  connection  as  the  present  is  usually  ren- 
dered against  or  concerning.  Cf.  10^  Ju.  9',  etc.  In  this  case  neither  is 
suitable.  The  former  must  be  rejected  because  the  oracle  that  follows 
is  plainly  intended,  not  to  disturb,  but  to  encourage.  The  latter  is  even 
more  objectionable  because,  as  explained  in  the  comments,  Israel  is 
clearly  not  the  subject  of  the  oracle.  The  incongruity  would  disappear 
if  Sx-ir^  were  replaced  by  aSrn^,  the  real  subject  of  this  and  the  follow- 
ing chapters,  except  13'-';  but,  as  there  seems  to  be  no  other  warrant  for 
this  change,  it  is  necessary,  with  10  Kenn  mss.,  to  substitute  for  '?>'  the 
Sn  of  Mai.  I'  and  translate  the  phrase  to  Israel.  An  additional  reason 
for  adopting  this  reading  is  that  the  title  here  found  was  probably  sup- 
plied by  the  author  of  the  one  in  Malachi  or  copied  from  the  latter. — 
Marti  c^uestions  the  genuineness  of  v.''  as  well  as  the  title,  but  he  gives 
no  reason  for  his  doubts,  except  that  similar  ascriptions  have  been  in- 
serted into  the  book  of  Amos.  Here,  however,  if  he  is  correct  in  his 
analysis,  there  is  nothing  to  which  to  attach  such  an  assumption. — '•>  onj] 
Sometimes  elsewhere,  but  not  often,  placed  at  the  beginning  of  an  oracle. 
Cf.  Nu.  24'-  "  2  S.  23'  Ps.  110';  K6.  ^"<  '•. — naj]  These  participles,  all 
three  of  them,  must  be  construed  as  referring  to  past  time.  Cf.  or,  v.  *; 
Ges.  ^  '••• «  c). — ins  .O'sr]  Without  the  art.  as  usual  in  poetical  language. 
Cf.  18.44"  51",  etc.;  cp.  Gn.  i',  etc. — 2.  no]  Second  ace.  after  oi;'.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^"'-  5  (<■).     The  word  more  commonly  means  threshold;  hence  (8, 

♦  On  the  courage  and  prowess  of  David,  see  2  S.  17'  i8' ;  on  the  comparison  of  the  house  of 
David  to  God,  Ps.  8»/'  Is.  p*/*  i  S.  14". 


12*-'  32? 

7rp6evpa;  B,  superlimmare;  »,  Xi^tZ;  but  the  meaning  howl  is  required 
by  the  context.— oSd'i-c—qji]  No  help  in  understanding  this  clause  is  to 
be  had  from  the  Vrss.,  which  read  as  follows:   <&,  koL  iv  t%  'lovdatq. 
IffTat  irepioxv  ^iri  'lepovaaXrip.;   B,   sed  et  Juda  erit   ohsidione   contra 
Jerusalem;    ^,   >a:^-».»c]  >al»  U^ol  looU  1?obl-V:»  ws].      The 
first  does  violence  to  Sj;  and  both  it  and  the  third  ignore  the  prep.  2. 
The  second  omits  ^';,  thus  bringing  its  rendering  into  harmony  with  (3 
which  reads,  also  of  the  house  of  Judah  shall  the  peoples  bring  by  violence 
in  the  siege  to  Jerusalem.     Geiger,  following  B  <F,  oms.  Sy,  which,  he  ex- 
plains, may  have  been  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  removing  the  objec- 
tionable thought  of  hostility  between  Judah  and  Jerusalem.     Stade  and 
others  have  adopted  this  view,  not  considering  that  the  Jews  would 
hardly  change  the  text  to  avoid  an  interpretation  which  they  themselves 
accepted.     Marti,  who  is  followed  by  Kittel,  omits  min>  h]}  DJi  and  for 
•11XC3  H'-n^  rds.,  with  ^^Q,  Houb.,  iiXD  n>ni,  and  there  shall  be  a  siege. 
This  is  simpler  than  M,  but  it  is  not  much  more  satisfactory,  retaining, 
as  it  does,  the  sinister  and  inconsistent  announcement  of  a  siege  against 
Jerusalem.     The  persistence  of  this  disturbing  element  makes  it  neces- 
sary to  regard,  not  only  Vy  or  min>  by  DJi,  but  the  whole  clause,  as  a 
mistaken  gloss  suggested  by  9'^     Cf  v.  "  •  e.     in  this  chapter,  it  must  be 
remembered,  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  do  not  really  succeed  in  reaching, 
much  less  taking,  the  city.— nisc3]  Here,  ace.  to  the  accentuation,  con- 
strued with  n>n\  as  it  is  with  another  form  of  the  same  verb  in  Ez.  4'. 
So  Robinson,  who  om.  Sy  and  explains  the  other  prep,  as  a  3  essentiae, 
thus  getting  the  unintelligible  statement  that  Judah  will  be  besieged 
against  Jerusalem.     The  interpretation  here  recommended  requires  that 
the  verb  be  construed  with  the  first,  and  -nxD3  with  the  second,  part  of 
the  clause. 

3.  nonys]  <B,  KaTairaTo{ip.€vov,  &,  )-^??  =  DDl?:.  Better  (F,  xSpn; 
but  neither  is  so  simple  and  expressive  as  M.  The  prtc.  here  has  an 
inceptive  sense,  which  may  be  reproduced  in  English  by  would  lift 
or,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  comments,  lift  o?z.— The  latter  half  of  the 
verse  is  142"  passively  expressed.  Note  especially  Y-M^r\  "u  S^,  instead 
of  the  D^nyn  So  of  v.  ^  or  the  aoD  D^cyn  Sa  of  w.  2-  «.  The  only  other 
place  where  u>^>  occurs  in  this  chapter  is  v.  \  q.  v.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  the  characteristic  term  in  ch.  14,  where  D^ny  occurs  only  once,  and 
then  in  a  passage  (v.  12)  in  which  some  mss.  have  D^u.  4.  '■•  Onj]  (S 
adds  irairrwKpdrojp.  So  g-",  but  Kenn.  130  oms.  the  whole  phrase.  ^  So 
Kit.— tmy3]  On  the  use  of  the  art.  with  abstract  nouns,  see  Ges.^ias- 
3  (O;  on  the  vocalisation  in  this  case,  Ges.^=^-  ^  «'  ^^^  "'•— 'J>  no  S'l] 
The  genuineness  of  this  clause  is  attested,  not  only  by  the  parallelism  be- 
tween it  and  the  first  of  the  verse,  but  by  the  occurrence  of  O'cyn.  Cf. 
vv.  2-  3-  6.     On  the  intervening  clause,  see  the  comments. 

5.  •>dSn]  Rd.  ^fjSx.     Cf.  I  S.  10",  where  ^Sn  occurs  as  a  synonym  of 


328  ZECHARIAH 

nnor-:.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  <S'-  adds  iravres. — hxcn]  Two  mss. 
have  NXCN,  from  nxs,  the  reading  represented  by  (§  {evp-fi<xoixev)  and  (T 
(nsru'N).  It  docs  not,  however,  suit  the  context.  Naturally,  therefore, 
one  must  reject  the  suggestion  of  Brd.,  that  ^^cn  is  only  another  form  for 
nxcn;  also  of  Sta.,  that  the  original  was  '"ixxcn;  and  of  Kui.,  that  it  was 
Nxos.  Hi.  conjectures  iSnx  dn  for  ''V  hxdn;  which  is  ingenious,  but  far- 
fetched. The  same  can  be  said  of  Marti's  S"'n  nxcj.  They  are  also  un- 
necessary, since  nscs  harmonises  with  the  context  when  pointed  as  a 
noun  in  either  of  two  forms,  nx::N  {'dmsdh)  thefem.  corresponding  to  vcs 
(Jb.  17'),  for  which  de  R.  cites  "nonmilli  codices,"  or  nxc.v,  the  reading 
preferred  by  Ki.  and  adopted  by  Baer.  See  U  (confortentur)  and  & 
(il.4^).  Ace.  to  Baer  his  F  has  nxpx,  pf.  Qal,  and  his  E  3  nxox 
imv.  Pi.;  but  both  are  impossible,  the  former,  because  it  ignores  the  form 
of  the  only  word  that  can  be  construed  as  its  subj.,  the  latter  because  a 
direct  appeal  to  Yahweh  is  not  consistent  with  the  final  phrase  through 
Yahweh  their  God. — ''2Z"'  ^S]  Here,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  need  of 
correction,  for  the  words  quoted  are  clearly  an  error  for  ■'au'^'S.  So  ®, 
Dathe,  Houb.,  Seek.,  Fltigge,  New.,  Ort.,  We.,  Now.,  van  H.,  et  al. — 
6.  ■'aSn]  Rd.,  as  in  v.  ^,  ■'bSn. — lie;"]  Ace.  to  BDB.,  a  swath,  but  more  prob- 
ably, in  view  of  oriental  methods  in  harvesting,  grain  in  bundles.  Cf. 
Am.  2"  Je.  9". — 'ji  n3i:"i]  This  clause  is  of  precisely  the  same  character  as 
those  in  vv.  '■  <  whose  genuineness  is  questioned,  having  been  dictated  by 
a  pious  jealousy  for  the  inviolability  of  the  Holy  City. — aSirn>3]  Ace. 
to  Houb.  a  corruption  of  oi'^ra,  but  its  omission  by  ^^<=-  ^  ^Q  indi- 
cates that  it  is  a  superfluous  gloss  to  n>nnn.  So  We.,  Now.,  Marti, 
GASm.,  Kit. — 7.  njii'sia]  So  Jil.  Rd.,  with  Kenn.  30,  180,  as  in  Dt.  9's, 
nju-N-i3,  or  with  Kenn.  17,  228,  as  in  Ju.  20^2^  nju'Ni33.  So  ®  B  d, 
Talm.,  Jer.,  Dathe.  The  idea  thus  conveyed  is  in  harmony  with  the  con- 
text, for  it  is  the  measure  of  Judah's  glory,  and  not  the  date  of  its  achieve- 
ment, about  which  Yahweh  is  concerned.  On  the  construction,  see  Ges. 
^118.  «  (A), — xS  li'o'^]  This  or  nS  nu-vS  ]j,tS  (Nu.  17O  is  stronger  than  jo. 
It  points,  not  to  a  result  which  the  subject  would  forestall,  but  to  an  event 
which  it  is  his  deliberate  purpose  and  policy  by  all  means  to  prevent.  Cf. 
Mitchell,  Final  Constructions,  22  jf. — T'n]  In  35  Kenn.  mss.  without'. 
— 3U=']  Rd.,  with  9  mss.,  (6  H  &  01,  or\  So  Bla.,  New.,  We.,  Now.— 
mini  Si']  Rd.,  with  (6'-'  g-  01,  mi,-i>  n^J  Sy;  a  rare  construction,  p  rather 
than  Sj"  being  commonly  used  to  express  comparison.  Cf,  Gn.  49''*,  etc.; 
Ges.^'w-';Ko.^'»8''.— 8.  ^y^]  In9'5S];.— ait'^]  Rd.,  with  9  mss.,  (61  &  01, 
>3C",  as  required  by  013.  So  New.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — ^u"3jn] 
van  H.  suggests  Su'cn! — winn  ova]  Not  necessary,  but,  since  it  adds  cer- 
tain emphasis  and  improves,  rather  than  disturbs,  the  rhythm.  Kit.  is 
hardly  warranted  in  omitting  it. — imid]  In  20  Kenn.  mss.  the  '  is  want- 
ing. ^•'^Qi"  rd.  Cos  olKOi  Aavcl8,  the  first  and  third  omitting  6  5^  ohos 
AaveiS  =    Tn  r-ai,  through  the  fault  of  a   (Greek)  copyist.     It  is  not 


12"-'"  329 

safe,  however,  to  infer  that  the  text  on  which  these  mss.  are  based  read  in 
the  first  case  imt  p'^^,  since  they  all  have  ws  oIkos  6eov,  although  the 
original  cannot  have  had  D^nSx  r^^22.  ijl  modifies  o^nSxr  to  ^31313, 
like  princes. 

(2)  A  great  lamentation  (12'*"). — The  people  of  Jerusalem, 
protected  by  Yahweh  and  transformed  by  his  Spirit,  will  be 
smitten  with  remorse  for  their  misdeeds,  and  especially  for  their 
cruelty  toward  a  nameless  sufferer  for  whom  they  will  observe  a 
period  of  poignant  and  universal  mourning. 

9.  This  verse  at  first  sight  seems  to  belong  to  the  preceding 
paragraph,  but  the  connection  between  the  two  is  not  so  close  as 
might  be  supposed.  In  those  verses  the  prophet  has  been  dealing 
with  the  relations  of  the  Jews  to  their  neighbours,  the  Edomites, 
Moabites,  etc.  He  now,  as  some  one  imdertook  to  do  for  him  in 
V.  ^,  gives  the  reader  a  glimpse  of  a  larger  world.  It  is  no  longer 
"the  peoples  round,"  but,  as  in  ch.  14,  all  the  nations,  whose  fate 
he  describes.  His  object  is  to  strengthen  the  assurance  already 
given  his  people  that  Yahweh  will  protect  them.  He  has  said  that 
their  God  will  give  them  the  mastery  over  their  neighbours;  he 
now  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the  declaration,  /  will  seek 
to  destroy  all  the  nations  that  come  against  Jerusalem,  that  is,  pun- 
ish with  destruction  any  nation,  near  or  far,  small  or  great,  that  at- 
tempts an  attack  upon  the  Holy  City.  This  is  one  side  of  the  mat- 
ter. There  is  another,  and  it  is  this  latter  to  which  the  prophet 
gives  most  prominence.  The  key  to  his  meaning  is  found  in  the 
thought  that  "the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  to  repentance,"  which 
is  a  favourite  with  Ezekiel.  Thus,  in  39^^  he  makes  Yahweh  say, 
"They  shall  bear  their  shame,"  realise  their  faithlessness,  "when 
they  dwell  safely  in  their  land,  with  none  to  terrify."* 

10.  The  bestowTnent  of  peace  and  security  is  not  the  only  means 
that  Yahweh  purposes  to  employ  to  change  the  hearts  of  his  people. 
The  operation  of  his  Spirit  is  another.  Cf.  Ez.  36-'^  ^•.  Now,  the 
fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  various.  Here,  where  it  is  poured  upon  the 
house  of  David  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  it  is  called 
the  Spirit  of  kindness  and  entreaty.    Cf.  Is.  1 1^.    The  word  ren- 

*  Kraetzschmar  makes  the  subject  in  this  passage  the  heathen,  but  from  16'°  ^-  20^'-  36^'- 
it  is  clear  that  it  is  Israel.     So  Ew.,  Or.,  Toy,  el  al. 


330  ZECHARIAH 

dered  kindness  is  usually  translated  grace,  and,  since  the  grace  of 
the  Bible  is  oftenest  the  grace  of  God,  some  have  inferred  that  it 
must  be  so  in  this  instance.  There  is,  however,  a  grace  of  men 
(Gn.  30-^),  and,  since  the  word  is  here  associated  with  entreaty, 
which  is  properly  predicated  only  of  human  subjects,  it  seems  fair 
to  infer  that  the  grace  or  kindness  in  question  is  that  of  the  peoi)le 
of  Jerusalem.*  The  thought,  therefore,  is  that  the  Spirit  will  pro- 
duce in  the  persons  named  a  kindness  of  disposition  and  a  mildness 
of  attitude  by  which  they  have  not  thus  far  been  characterised. 
Toward  whom  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  is  found  in  the  next 
clause,  which  describes  the  first  act  growing  out  of  this  changed 
character.  It  says,  they  shall  consider  him  whom  they  pierced. 
To  pierce  is  generally  to  put  to  death.  Cf.  13^  Ju.  g''*.  It  is 
natural,  therefore,  to  infer  that  the  one  pierced  is  here  a  victim  of 
popular  displeasure  on  whose  fate  the  Jews  high  and  low  will  one 
day  be  moved  to  reflect,  and  that  because  the  dislike  and  harshness 
that  once  ruled  have  given  place  to  their  opposites.  The  identity 
of  the  martyr  it  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  older  exegetes  gen- 
erally see  in  him  the  Messiah.  Those  who  adopt  this  view,  how- 
ever, overlook  a  point  of  great  importance,  namely,  that  while  the 
effusion  of  the  spirit  and  the  effect  produced  by  it  are  evidently 
future,  the  act  of  piercing  the  nameless  victim  belongs  to  the  past. 
This  means  that  the  one  pierced  is  not  the  Messiah,  whose  advent, 
all  will  agree,  was  still  future  when  these  words  were  written,  but 
some  one  who  had  at  the  time  already  suffered  martyrdom.  It  is 
easier  to  establish  this  point  than  to  go  further  in  the  same  direc- 
tion, for,  when  the  attempt  is  made  to  find  an  individual,  the  vic- 
tim of  popular  passion,  whose  death  the  prophet  would  expect  to 
see  universally  lamented,  the  inquirer  learns  that  he  has  raised  a 
question  for  which  extant  history  has  no  answer.  Zechariah,  tlie 
son  of  Jehoida,  put  to  death  by  order  of  King  Joash,t  Uriah,  the 
son  of  Shemaiah,  the  prophet  who  suffered  under  JehoIakim,J  and 
Gedaliah,  the  governor  treacherously  murdered  by  Ishmael  of  the 
seed  royal  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Davidic  dynasty§  are  all  too 

*  In  Je.  3i»  the  entreaty  is  not  by  Yahweh,  but  by  the  people  he  is  leading.     Cp.  Bu., 
who  for  0'j)jnn  reads  D'Cinjr,  consolation. 
t  Cj.  1  CM.  2420  B..  X  Cj.  Je.  2(P  »:  §  Cj.  Je.  41'  »■. 


12'-"  331 

remote ;  Jeremiah  also,  of  the  manner  of  whose  death  there  is  no 
reliable  information.  The  second  objection  holds  in  the  case  of 
Zerubbabel,  in  spite  of  Sellin's  attempt  to  identify  him  with  the 
Servant  of  Yahweh.*  Under  the  circumstances  any  plausible 
suggestion  is  welcome.  One  of  the  most  attractive  is  that  the  ob- 
ject of  consideration  in  the  clause  quoted  is  not  a  single  imfortunate 
individual,  but  a  considerable  number  of  godly  persons  who  have 
perished  by  violence.  This  interpretation  is  favoured  by  the  strik- 
ing likeness  between  the  situation  here  outlined  and  that  portrayed 
in  Is.  52^^-53'",  where  the  loyal  remnant  of  Israel  is  represented  by 
the  Servant  of  Yahweh.  Perhaps  the  one  here  pierced  represents 
those  who  toward  the  end  of  the  Persian  period  bore  the  reproaches 
of  the  reproachers  of  Yahweh  and  finally  shed  their  blood  in  his 
cause.  Perhaps,  however,  the  author  of  this  difficult  passage  took 
the  Servant  of  Yahweh  in  Second  Isaiah  for  a  historical  figure, 
otherwise  nameless,  who  had  died  a  martyr's  death.  This  is  pre- 
cisely what  was  done  by  later  Jews,  who  call  him  "Messiah  the 
son  of  Joseph"  and  represent  him  as  the  forerunner  of  the  greater 
son  of  David. t  Finally, — and  this  is  even  more  to  the  point, — they 
say  that  he  is  at  the  same  time  the  sufferer  in  the  passage  now 
under  consideration.^  The  prophet  predicts  that  those  who  were 
responsible  for  the  crime  committed,  or  their  descendants,  will 
bitterly  repent  and  lament  it,  using  two  very  strong  similes  to 
illustrate  the  poignancy  of  their  sorrow.  They  shall  lament  for 
him,  he  says,  as  one  lamentethfor  an  only  son,  and  they  shall  grieve 
for  him  as  one  grieveth  for  the  first-born.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
recall  the  eagerness  of  the  Hebrews  for  offspring,  especially  sons, 
to  realise  the  forcefulness  of  these  figures.  Cf.  Gn.  15^^^'  2  K. 
4"^-,  etc. 

11.  There  is  a  third  comparison.  In  tliat  day,  it  runs,  great  shall 
he  the  lamentation  in  Jerusalem;  like  the  lamentation  of  Hadadrim- 
mon  in  the  Plain  of  Megiddo.  The  Plain  of  Megiddo,  according 
to  2  K.  28-''  ^^  was  the  scene  of  the  battle  between  the  Jews  and 
the  Egyptians  in  which  King  Josiah  lost  his  life.  The  Chronicler 
enlarges  upon  the  story,  saying  that  "all  Judah  and  Jerusalem 
mourned   for   Josiah,"    that,   indeed,    "Jeremiah   lamented   for 

*  Zerubbabel,  174  /.  t  Weber,  APT.,  346  /.  +  Cj.  .\E.,  Ra.,  Ki.,  el  al. 


332  ZECHARTAH 

Josiah,"  and  "all  the  male  and  female  singers  spake  of"  him  "in 
their  lamentations  to"  his  "day."  The  custom  may  have  con- 
tinued until  this  passage  was  written.  If  not,  there  was  the  tradi- 
tion preserved  by  the  Chronicler  to  suggest  the  allusion  and  to  be 
suggested  by  the  mention  of  Megiddo.  At  any  rate  it  has  always 
been  the  prevailing  opinion  that  in  the  words  quoted  the  writer  was 
referring  to  the  intense  and  universal  grief  occasioned  by  the  death 
of  the  good  king.  This  is  the  express  teaching  of  the  Targum*  and 
the  Syriac  Version,  the  latter  substituting  "the  son  of  Amon"  for 
the  name  Hadadrimmon.  Jerome  adopts  the  same  interpretation, 
explaining  that  Hadadrimmon  was  a  place,  not  far  from  ancient 
Jezreel,  which  in  his  day  was  called  Maximianopolis;  and  many 
others  have  followed  his  example.  It  was  identified  by  van  de 
Veldef  with  "a  small  village  called  Rumani  about  three-quarters 
of  an  hour  south  of  Megiddo,"  doubtless  the  Rummaneh  of  later 
maps,  which  is  located  about  four  miles  south-east  of  Lejjun,  that 
is,  Megiddo.  According  to  ConderJ  it  is  seven  and  a  fourth  miles 
from  Zerin,  the  site  of  ancient  Jezreel.  Some  modern  scholars  find 
in  Hadadrimmon,  not  a  topographical  detail,  but  another  name 
for  the  Babylonian  god  Tammuz,  the  Greek  Adonis,  the  anni- 
versary of  whose  death  was  observed  as  a  day  of  lamentation.  C/. 
Ez.  8".  Thus  Hitzig,  Jeremias§  and  others,  while  Cheyne  main- 
tains that  the  name  is  merely  a  corruption  of  Tammuzadon.** 
The  former  of  these  conjectures  has  been  refuted  by  Baudissin,tt 
the  latter  is  too  arbitrary  to  require  refutation.  It  is  probable 
that  neither  of  them  would  have  been  suggested  had  its  author 
duly  considered  the  fact  that  the  mourning  for  Tammuz  was  not 
real,  but  fictitious,  and  that  therefore  there  would  be  little  force 
in  a  comparison  in  which  it  was  recalled.  There  is  no  serious 
objection  to  the  earlier  view  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  put  by  Bau- 
dissin,  who  interprets  the  expression  the  lamentation  of  Hadadrim- 
mon as  meaning  the  demonstration  by  which  the  Jews  expressed 
their  grief,  not  at  Hadadrimmon,  wherever  it  may  have  been,  but 

*  It  reads,  "Like  the  mourning  of  Ahab,  son  of  Omri,  whom  Hadadrimmon,  son  of  Tab- 
rimmon  slew,  and  like  the  mourning  of  Josiah,  son  of  Amon,  whom  Pharaoh  slew  in  the  Plain 
of  Megiddo." 

t  Syria  and  Palestine,  i,  353.  X  Tent  Life,  i,  129.  §  AT.,  113. 

•*  Cf.  EB.,  art.  Hadadrimmon.  tt  Studien,  i,  305  fj. 


12"-"  333 

over  the  irreparable  loss  they  there  suffered.* — 12.  The  lamenta- 
tion will  not  only  be  bitter,  but  universal.  This  thought  is  ex- 
pressed by  the  method  of  enumeration,  which,  however,  is  not  car- 
ried beyond  a  certain  limit.  First  comes  the  general  statement 
that  the  land  shall  mourn  each  family  by  themselves.  The  family 
is  the  largest  division  named  because  the  author  confines  himself 
to  the  territory  of  Judah.  He  brings  the  families  forward  one 
after  another,  not,  as  Wellhausen  imagines,  from  a  fondness  for 
processions  and  ceremonies,  but  for  the  purpose  of  reinforcing 
the  thought  that  he  wishes  to  convey.  They  will  all  join  in  the 
lamentation  because  each  of  them  will  have  peculiar  reason  for 
mourning.  Indeed,  in  the  house  of  David,  the  first  in  rank  and  im- 
portance, and  in  all  the  others  as  well,  their  women  will  lament  by 
themselves.  The  second  family  to  receive  mention  is  the  house  of 
Nathan.  There  is  no  means  of  identifying  with  certainty  the  head 
of  this  family,  but  since,  in  the  next  verse,  the  name  Levi  is  fol- 
lowed by  another  from  the  genealogy  of  the  priestly  tribe,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  the  Nathan  of  this  passage  is  the  son  of  David  of 
that  name.  Cf.  2  S.  5".! — ^13.  The  priests  must  have  united  with 
the  princes  against  the  martyr,  whoever  he  was,  as  they  finally  did 
in  the  case  of  Jeremiah.  Cf.  37*'^  38'*.  At  any  rate,  the  family  of 
the  house  of  Levi  will  be  among  the  mourners,  and  that  in  all  its 
branches;  for  this  seems  to  be  what  the  author  means  by  adding 
the  family  of  the  Shimites,  this  family  being,  according  to  Nu.  3"', 
among  the  descendants  of  Gershom,  the  eldest  son  of  Levi.  At- 
tention has  already  been  called  to  the  significance  of  the  relation 
between  the  tribes  of  David  and  Levi  as  here  presented.  Cf. 
p.  258.  It  indicates  that  the  passage  belongs  to  a  comparatively 
late  date.  See  Je.  t,2,^^^-  as  compared  with  23^^-. — 14.  The 
names  enumerated  represent  the  ruling  classes,  who  were  doubt- 
less largely  responsible,  as  in  the  case  of  the  persecution  of  Jere- 
miah, for  the  outrage  now  lamented.  The  rest,  however,  cannot 
have  been  guiltless.  They  might  have  been  introduced  according 
to  their  families,  but,  if  the  list  had  been  greatly  lengthened,  it 
would  have  defeated  the  author's  purpose.    He  therefore  cuts  it 

*  Studien,  i,  310  /• 

t  Others  identify  hitn  with  Nathan  the  prophet.    So  Jer.,  Ra.,  Pres.,  Brd.,  et  al. 


334  ZECHARIAH 

short  at  this  point,  only  adding  by  way  of  summation,  all  the  fam- 
ilies that  arc  left,  each  family  by  themselves,  and  their  women  by 
themselves. 

9.  In  this  chapter  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  have  been  their  gentile 
neighbours,  and  have  been  called  O'cyn;  except  in  v.  ',  where  the  last 
clause  was  pronounced  a  gloss,  because  it  deviated  in  both  respects  from 
the  context.  The  recurrence  of  D'un  naturally  makes  one  suspect  an- 
other addition  to  the  text,  and  this  may  be  the  case;  but  it  is  also  possible 
that,  just  as  D''3j,'n  is  once  used  in  ch.  14  for  oiijn  (v.  '=),  so,  by  a  slip  of 
the  pen  of  either  the  author  or  a  copyist,  O'un  has  here  taken  the  place  of 
O'Djjn.  For  another  alternative,  see  the  comments. — a^Non]  De  R.  319 
marg.  has  a^saxn;  but  the  Mas.  expressly  says  that  the  latter  word  is  found 
onlyinNu.  3i"Is.  29' '■.  C/".  Baer,  notes,  84. — 10.  iMt]  In2  5  Kenn  mss. 
'  is  wanting. — 3r^]  Rd.,  with  26  mss.,  ^  B  &  21,  •'2V\ — nn]  With  two  gen- 
itives, a  rare  construction  of  which,  however,  there  are  three  cases  in  Is. 
ii2.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'"-  K — D"ijijnpi]  The  pi.  as  an  abstract  noun.  C/.  Ges. 
km.  1  (*)>«.. — iSx]  The  prep,  with  the  sf.  of  the  ist  sg.;  no  doubt  the 
reading  of  the  great  majority  of  the  mss.  and  edd.  It  is  also  the  one  rep- 
resented by  (S  1C  H  &  ©  Aq.  S  0,  and  adopted  by  Norzi,  Dathe,  de  R. 
Baer,  Gins.,  et  at.  There  are,  however,  serious  objections  to  its  genuine- 
ness. In  the  first  place,  it  does  not  harmonise  with  the  following  context, 
where  the  one  to  whom  it  is  predicted  that  the  Jews  will  look  is  ap- 
parently referred  to  in  the  third  person.  One  method  of  meeting  this  ob- 
jection is  to  make  the  sf.  of  r*^;'  refer  to  the  act  of  piercing  (Grot.,  et  al.); 
but  this  interpretation  is  arbitrary  and  unnatural,  and  it  is  disproved 
by  the  comparisons  by  which  the  author  illustrates  the  grievousness  of 
the  mourning  predicted.  Others,  following  (&  01,  treat  tj'n  pn  as  if  the 
text  had  TiTN  Sp.  This  device  is  naturally  a  favourite  with  Jewish  schol- 
ars, who  see  in  the  relative  a  reference  to  Messiah,  the  son  of  Joseph 
(AE.),  or  some  other  martyr  or  martyrs.  So  Ra.  It  must  be  rejected 
because  the  language  used  cannot  properly  be  so  interpreted.  A  second 
objection  to  ffl  is  that,  when  taken  in  its  most  obvious  meaning,  it  passes 
the  limits  of  permissible  anthropomorphism.  Those  who  defend  it  seek 
to  meet  this  difficulty  by  saying,  with  Koh.,  that  Yahweh  here  identifies 
himself  with  the  sufferer,  so  that  he  "regards  a  thrust  through  the  Re- 
deemer as  a  thrust  that  he  himself  has  suffered."  So  Pres.,  Wri.,  et  al. 
It  is  very  doubtful  if  the  author  of  the  passage  would  go  so  far  as  this, 
but,  if  he  did,  why  did  he  not  write  'Sj?  instead  of  rSj",  thus  carrying  the 
thought  far  enough  to  make  it  unmistakable  ?  Thus  far  mention  has 
been  made  of  but  one  reading.  There  is  another,  v'^n.  It  is  found  in  45 
of  the  mss.  collated  by  Kenn.  and  de  R.  It  is  the  oriental,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  occidental  reading.  Cf.  Baer,  notes,  89.  It  appears 
in  Talm.  {Suk.,  v,  52)  and  in  early  editions  of  the  commentaries  of  AE, 


i2«-"  335 

Ra.,  Ki.  Another  witness  for  the  same  reading  is  the  NT.,  for  in  Jn.  19'% 
where  this  passage  is  quoted,  it  is  rendered  6\l/ovTai  ei's  Sv  i^eKivr-qixav. 
See  also  Rev.  i'.  This  reading  is  the  more  remarkable  because  it 
varies,  not  only  from  the  Heb.,  but  also  from  (§,  where,  although  the 
words  6fovTai  els  Sv  i^eKiin-t)<Tav  are  found  in  a  series  of  mss.  either  with 
{(S^)  or  without  ((S^)  the  alternate  reading,  a.vd''  wv  KaTwpxvo^avTo,  they 
are  always  preceded  by  irpba-  n^  =  <Sn.  The  following  Fathers  follow 
the  NT.  in  omitting  7rp6s  fii  and  thus  practically  accepting  the  reading 
vSn:  Justin,  Clement,  Alexandrine,  Barnabas,  Theodoret,  Ignatius, 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian.  Objection  was  made  to  the  present  reading  that  it 
did  not  harmonise  with  the  following  context  or  present  an  idea  that 
could  safely  be  attributed  to  the  author  of  the  passage.  No  such  ob- 
jection can  be  urged  against  vSn.  The  point  may,  however,  be  made, 
and,  in  fact,  has  been  made  by  de  R.,  that  vSn  is  the  easier  reading; 
hence  it  is  more  probable  that  it  is  an  error  for  "iSn  than  vice  versa. 
There  is  great  force  in  this  objection.  Indeed,  it  so  weakens  the  case 
for  vS«  that  those  who  feel  the  incongruity  of  the  Massoretic  text  will 
have  to  resort  to  emendation.  The  NT.  points  the  way.  Following  it 
one  may,  with  Bla.,  om.  nx,  and,  for  '''7N,  rd.,  either  with  Bla.,  i":??,  as  in 
Jb.  3'^  or  the  prosal  form  "^n,  thus  obtaining  the  result  aimed  at  in  chang- 
ing iSn  to  vSn.  On  the  construction  ic's  ha,  see  Ez.  42";  Ges.  ^  ''^  (2)^ 
We.,  et  al.,  see  in  pa  a  relic  of  a  fuller  reading;  but  a  more  probable 
explanation  is  that  it  is  a  variant  for  Sn  or  the  result  of  an  attempt  to 
mend  the  text  after  Ss  or  -Sx  had  become  ^Sx.  Mention  should  here  be 
made  of  the  ingenious  emendation  proposed  by  van  H,,  who  puts  a 
pause  after  ^Sn  and  for  noDi  rds.  'n£3D\ — -inm]  The  inf.  abs.  continuing 
the  discourse  after  a  finite  vb.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  »'• «  ^"K  Perhaps  the  original 
was  ncm.  So  <S  B  &  ®,  Houb.  Some  such  word  as  S^s*  is  to  be  sup- 
plied as  an  object.  Cf.  Am.  5I6.— 11.  t^n"*"'"''']  This  name  has  various 
forms  in  the  mss.,  but  they  can  all  be  explained  as  the  results  of  the 
carelessness  of  copyists.  Ace.  to  Che.  it  has  gone  through  the  follow- 
ing modifications:  jnNtnn — i^jd — pin — pm — pDmin!  Van  H.,  follow- 
ing (B  i^oQvos),  rds.  liDi. — pijc]  &,  with  13  mss.,  rds.  njc. — 12.  mnsjiyD 
mnBrD]Rd.,  withCgAQr  nnsc'D  nnouD.  C/.  Gn.32»'.— 13':']  Throughout 
this  and  the  following  verses  with  -7-,  even  with  the  lesser  distinctives. 
Add.,  with  (S  3,  12^  an^c'ji. — iMi]  In  27  mss.  -  is  wanting.— la'^s]  jer., 
in  his  translation  of  (S,  inserts  here,  Tribus  domus  Judm  seorsum,  et 
mulieres  eorum  seorsum. — 13.  lynrn]  Kenn.  155,  •'i'ct'n  na;  i,  102,  n'3 
'ycE*.  So  01.  (&,  rod  Su/ietbf;  S,  oXkov  "Lvixeiiv;  so  0. — nnorD  nncrc] 
In  26  Kenn.  mss.,  mnoro  mnsrc;  yet  rd.,  with  ®,  nnjjiro  nnccD. 

(3)  A  great  purification  (13*-^).— A  general  announcement  is  fol- 
lowed by  a  more  detailed  prediction  concerning  the  suppression  of 
idolatry  and  false  prophecy. 


336  ZECHARIAH 

1.  In  the  preceding  paragraph  th°  author  brought  his  revela- 
tions to  a  point  at  which  his  people,  by  divine  aid,  realised  and 
lamented  their  blindness  and  cruelty.  The  change  makes  it  pos- 
sible for  Yahweh  to  introduce  a  better  state  of  things.  This  par- 
agraph, therefore,  begins  with  a  promise.  In  that  day  there  shall  be  a 
foutUain  opened  for  the  house  of  David  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  whole  community.  The  fountain,  as  at  once  appears, 
is  to  be  taken  figuratively,  being  provided,  not  for  external  soilure, 
but  for  sin  and  impurity.  The  reference  to  sin  recalls  the  great 
crime  of  the  preceding  paragraph,  and  suggests  that  the  announce- 
ment here  made  is  virtually  a  decree  of  absolution  for  the  same ;  but 
this  is  not  the  case.  If  it  were,  the  language  used  would  be  differ- 
ent, and  this  verse  would  have  to  be  attached  to  the  twelfth  chapter. 
The  key  to  the  writer's  meaning  is  found  in  the  word  impurity,"^ 
a  technical  term  for  ceremonial  defilement,  especially  that  caused 
by  menstruation.  Cf.  Lv.  12^-  ^  15^^^',  etc.  Ezekiel  uses  it  fre- 
quently of  the  corrupting  effect  of  idolatry.  Thus,  in  36*^  he  makes 
Yahweh  say  that  the  way  of  the  house  of  Israel  before  him  has 
been  "like  the  uncleanness  of  (menstrual)  impurity";  which  in 
V.  **  is  explained  as  meaning  that  they  have  defiled  the  land  "with 
their  idols."  But  the  most  significant  feature  of  Ezekiel's  proph- 
ecy is  the  promise  (v.  -^),  "I  will  sprinkle  upon  you  clean  water; 
from  all  your  uncleanness  and  from  all  your  images  will  I  cleanse 
you";  for  it  is  pretty  clear  that  this  passage  is  the  original  from 
which  the  one  now  under  consideration  was  freely  copied.  If  so, 
this  first  verse  looks  forward  rather  than  backward,  being,  not  a 
decree  of  absolution  for  past  offences,  which  seems  to  be  taken  for 
granted,  but  a  promise  of  security  from  future  contamination  by 
unclean  associations.  In  Is.  12^  the  same  fountain  supplies  the 
redeemed  people  \vith  unstinted  draughts  of  salvation. — 2.  This 
view  of  the  passage  is  confirmed  by  the  context,  for  here,  as  in  Eze- 
kiel, the  figurative  term  impurity  is  at  once  explained  by  a  refer- 
ence to  idolatry.  C/".  Ez.  36^37^.  /  zfi// cm/ 0^,  says  Yahweh,  the 
names  of  the  idols,  cause  all  mention  of  them  to  cea.se,  from  the  land,^ 
and  they  shall  be  no  more  remembered.  Cf.  Ho.  2***.  The  latter 
half  of  the  verse  contains  an  announcement,  at  first  sight  rather 

♦  nnj.  t  Not  earth,  with  Bla..  Hd.,  el  al. 


13'-'  337 

startling,  but  it  is  not  so  new  and  radical  as  it  has  been  represented. 
The  author  does  not  mean  to  make  Yahweh  say  without  quali- 
fication that  he  will  remove  the  prophets  from  the  land.  Here,  as 
above,  he  is  evidently  following  Ezekiel,  trying,  however,  to  say  in 
a  sentence  what  the  earlier  writer  took  much  more  space  to  express. 
The  teaching  of  Ezekiel  is  found  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  his 
prophecies,  where  Yahweh  first  instructs  him  with  reference  to  the 
lay  member  of  the  house  of  Israel  who,  taking  "his  images  to  his 
heart,"  comes  to  the  prophet,  that  the  latter  may  consult  Yahweh 
for  him.  Then  he  adds  (v.  ^),  "and,  if  the  prophet  be  deceived 
and  speak  a  word,  I,  Yahweh,  have  deceived  that  prophet,  and  I 
will  stretch  out  my  hand  against  him  and  destroy  him  from  the 
midst  of  my  people  Israel ;  ...  as  the  punishment  of  the  one  that 
consulteth  him,  so  shall  the  punishment  of  the  prophet  be."  In 
other  words,  the  prophet,  when,  and  because,  he  encourages,  or 
neglects  to  rebuke,  evil  tendencies  among  his  people,  will  be  de- 
stroyed with  them.  C/.  Dt.  13^/^  ^•.  If,  therefore,  the  prophets  here 
include  the  whole  guild,  it  is  not  because  they  are  prophets,  but 
because  they  have  individually  proven  themselves  unworthy  of  their 
high  calling.  Cf.  Je.  23^^-.  This  is  clear  from  what  follows. 
The  whole  sentence  reads.  The  prophets,  also,  and  the  spirit  of 
uncleanness  will  I  remove  from  the  land.  Here,  again,  the  writer 
is  simply  summarising  Ezekiel.  That  prophet  makes  Yahweh  say : 
"A  new  heart,  also,  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  vdll  I  put 
within  you;  .  .  .  and  I  will  save  you  from  all  your  uncleanness; 
.  .  .  and  ye  shall  loathe  yourselves  in  your  own  sight  for  your  in- 
iquities and  your  abominations."  The  spirit  of  uncleanness,  then, 
must  be  the  disposition  to  neglect  the  precepts  of  Yahweh,  or  even 
worship  the  abominations  of  other  peoples ;  and  the  reference  to 
the  prophets  in  this  connection  may  be  taken  to  indicate  that,  when 
it  was  made,  they  were  prominent  exponents  of  a  widespread  dis- 
loyalty, that,  in  fact,  the  word  prophet  was  then  almost  synonymous 
with  false  prophet. 

3.  The  suppression  of  these  false  prophets  will  require  time  and, 
in  the  end,  the  most  unflinching  severity.  If  necessary,  however, 
the  Deuteronomic  law  requiring  one  to  put  one's  relatives  to  death 
for  attempted  seduction  from  Yahweh  will  be  applied.     Cf  Dt. 


338  ZECHARIAH 

j^Voff.,  ij  d  ffi^fi  still  prophesy,  persist  in  posing  as  a  prophet, 
his  father  and  his  mother  who  begot  him  will  be  his  judges  and 
executioners.  The  sentence,  Thou  shall  not  live,  is  based  on  a 
charge,  Thou  Jiast  spoken  falsehood  in  the  name  of  Yahweh,  which, 
at  first  sight,  seems  to  conflict  with  the  interpretation  thus  far 
followed.  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  gods  of  the 
nations  did  not  require  the  exclusive  devotion  of  their  worshippers, 
and  that,  therefore,  there  was  no  reason,  so  far  as  they  were  con- 
cerned, why  the  Jews  who  served  them  should  not  at  the  same  time 
serve  Yahweh.  Indeed,  this  is  precisely  what  Ezekiel,  in  a  passage 
already  quoted  (13^),  accuses  them  of  doing.  Cf  Je.  7^  ^•.  There 
is  therefore  nothing  incongruous  in  the  fact  that  prophets  who  have 
been  condemned  for  idolatry  are  here  represented  as  speaking  in 
the  name  of  the  true  God.  Neither  Yahweh  nor  one  of  his  loyal 
worshippers,  however,  can  tolerate  such  a  form  of  syncretism.  Th  e 
parents  of  the  offender,  therefore,  if  he  persists  in  his  course,  shall 
pierce  him  through  when  he  prophesieth. — 4.  The  prophets  gener- 
ally will  not  continue  their  unwarranted  utterances  in  the  name  of 
Yahweh.  They  sliall  be  ashamed,  each  of  his  vision;  shall  shrink 
from  making  public,  as  they  are  accustomed  to  do,  their  fictitious 
revelations.  They  will  cease  to  desire  to  be  recognised  as  proph- 
ets. Therefore  they  sliall  not  longer,  like  wolves  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing, wear  a  hairy  mantle,  apparently  a  customary  badge  of  the 
prophetic  office, /or  the  purpose  of  deceiving,  making  the  false  im- 
pression that  they  are  genuine  men  of  God.* — 5.  Not  that  they 
have  any  scruples  against  deception:  far  from  it;  for,  when  it 
suits  their  interests,  as,  for  example,  when  they  are  threatened  with 
retribution  by  their  outraged  dupes,  they  will  not  hesitate  to  lie, 
saying,  one  and  all,  /  am  not  a  prophet.  They  will  even,  so  great 
\\i\\  be  their  demoralisation,  seek  a  refuge  among  the  humblest  of 
the  community,  each  of  them  declaring,  The  soil  hath  been  my  pos- 
session from  my  youth. — 6.  The  scene  here  described  is  one  that 
may  have  taken  place  more  than  once  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem. 

*  There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  about  the  garment  in  question.  Rosenmiiller  and 
others  think  it  was  of  cloth  woven  from  goaLs'  or  camels'  hair,  like  that  of  John  the  Baptist. 
CI.  Mt.  3*.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  to  judge  from  Gn.  25^  and  2  K.  i',  that  it  was  made 
from  skins  and  intended  to  recall  the  simplicity  of  primitive  times.  See  the  customs  of  the 
Rechabitcs  and  the  Narirites. 


13'""  339 

It  is  now  drawing  to  a  close.  It  should  have  a  dramatic  character. 
Otherwise  it  might  as  well  not  have  been  portrayed.  The  proper 
effect  can  be  produced  in  only  one  way.  A  cowering  wretch  has 
been  accused  by  an  indignant  mob  of  being  a  false  prophet.  He 
denies  it  and  points  to  his  rustic  dress  as  proof  of  his  innocence. 
Since  his  defence  is  a  falsehood,  justice  requires  that  he  should  be 
unmasked.  The  question,  therefore,  with  which  he  is  now  assailed 
must  be  interpreted  as  an  attempt  to  reach  this  result.  In  other 
words,  when  his  accusers  ask.  What  are  these  woutids  between  thy 
sides  ?  that  is,  on  thy  back,  they  mean  that  the  wounds  proclaim 
him  at  the  same  time  a  prophet  and  a  liar.  On  the  text,  see  the 
critical  notes;  on  the  subject  of  flogging  among  the  Hebrews, 
Dt.  25^  Pr.  19"^  etc.;  DB.,  art.  Crimes  and  Punishments.  The 
reply  has  been  variously  understood.  The  last  words  of  it  have 
sometimes  been  rendered  in  the  house  of  my  lovers.  This,  how- 
ever, though  literal,  is  not  correct,  for  my  lovers,  as  usage  abun- 
dantly shows,  could  only  mean  false  gods,  and  that  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Jewish  people  under  the  figure  of  an  vmfaithful  wife.  Cf. 
Ho.  2^  Je.  22^*^ ^-  Ez.  id^^-,  etc.  What  the  suspected  prophet 
actually  says  is.  Those  with  which  I  was  smitten  in  the  house  of  my 
friends.  By  his  friends  he  doubtless  means  his  parents.  If  so, 
the  wounds,  or  rather  the  scars,  he  bears  are  the  traces  of  pimish- 
ment  which  he  has  received  under  the  paternal  roof.  This  may 
mean  that  the  woimds  were  inflicted  by  his  parents  either  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  rigorous  discipline,*  or  for  the  offence  of  at- 
tempting the  role  of  a  prophet. f  Perhaps  the  ambiguity  is  in- 
tentional. If  so,  the  words  must  be  regarded  as  a  clever  attempt 
of  the  accused  to  throw  his  inquisitors  off  the  scent  without  telling 
another  absolute  falsehood.     So  Maurer. 

1 .  iipc]  (S,  Tras  rhiros  =  oipD  S3.  A  palpable  error,  fH  being  sup- 
ported by  Aq.  (0X^V)  and  S  Q{vqyri)  as  well  as  B  &  ®. — nvxon'?]  Rd. 
TNOnS,  there  being  but  one  instance,  and  that  a  doubtful  one,  of  the  use 
of  the  cstr.  before  a  1.  So  Sta.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  Cp.  Ges.  ^"o  (2)._ 
mjSi— '3U->'?i]  <SQ"&"om.— 2.  niNjx]  Om.,  with  (6^*2. — n>"]  Kenn.4, 112, 
150  add  ODU'3  from  Ho.  2''. — a''N3jn]  Qi,  roiis  (pevSoirpocp-firas.    SoB&(3. 

*  So  Theod.  Mops.,  Ki.,  Dru.,  Koh.,  Klie.,  Pres.,  et  at. 
t  So  Jer.,  Theodoret,  Cal.,  Hi.,  Brd.,  et  al. 


340  ZECHARIAH 

— 3.  ^r]  If  and  as  often  as,  a  frequent  usage  in  legal  language.  Cf.  Ex. 
21",  etc. — viS^  1SN1  v3Ni]  Twice  questioned  by  Kit.,  but  without  reason 
given.  Cf.  Dt.  13'"^'. — miiTni]  <$,  <TvfxwodioO<Tiv,  as  if  from  irnpi'i,  Gn. 
22';  but  Aq.  S  9  have  iKKevr-^aovffiv. — 4.  insajna]  A  case,  the  only  one  in 
Niph.,  of  confusion  between  an  inf.  from  a  final  n,  with  one  from  a  final 
n  vb.  Cf.  Ges.  ^7<-  '•  '^^  ^  Rd.  either  iNajna  or  DNajna;  or,  since  the 
word  is  really  not  only  useless,  but  incongruous,  omit  it  altogether. — 
nSi]  (5  oms.  the  negative  owing  to  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  iu'aS>  lynS 
which  it  renders  dvO'  wv  i^evaavro. — iraS^]  Twenty  Kenn.  mss.  add  ii>*. 
So  ul. — 5.  ■'3JN]  Kenn.  112  adds,  from  Am.  7'-',  •'3JN  noj  p  n'^\ — 
^3JN — ^'n]  An  explanatory  marginal  gloss,  omitted  by  ^'^Q^"",  which 
should  have  been  inserted,  if  at  all,  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  Then  ■•3 
would  have  retained  its  original  adversative  meaning.  Cf.  Am.  7". — 
^jjpn  din]  The  text  is  unintelligible.  The  vb.  njp  means  get  in  a  broad 
sense,  including  the  acquisition  of  the  products  of  one's  own  efforts  and 
the  possessions  of  others.  It  may  therefore  be  rendered  create  and 
rescue  of  God,  and  acquire  and  purchase  of  men.  The  derivative  n:|iD 
means  possession,  or,  since  the  wealth  of  the  early  Hebrews  consisted 
principally  of  animals,  cattle.  The  Hiph.,  the  form  here  used,  naturally 
has  the  sense  of  a  causative,  and  has  generally  been  so  rendered.  Some 
of  the  renderings  are:  (&,  i'^^wtjaev;  Dru.,  taught  me  (husbandry);  AE., 
made  me  a  landowner;  Ra.,  made  me  a  cattleowner;  Ges.,  sold  me  as  a 
slave;  Houb.,  bought  me  as  a  slave.  The  last  is  the  most  widely  accepted; 
but  the  thought  that  it  expresses  is  hardly  one  to  be  expected  in  this  con- 
nection. A  far  better  reading  is  secured  by  the  emendation  suggested 
by  Wellhausen,  viz.,  ^j^jp  nms,  the  soil  hath  been  my  possession,  which 
is  so  simple  and  plausible  that  it  has  been  generally  adopted.  If,  how- 
ever, this  is  the  original  form  of  the  final  clause,  here  is  another  reason 
for  regarding  the  one  preceding  as  a  gloss. — 6.  iSvSi]  The  subj.  is  per- 
sonal, but  indefinite.  Cf.  Ges.  ^"^-  '  <">. — in^]  If  the  text  is  correct, 
the  word  1%  hand,  is  here,  as  elsewhere,  used  in  the  sense  of  ynr,  arm, 
and  between  the  hands  has  the  meaning  that  "between  the  arms"  has 
in  2  K.  g-*,  namely,  between  the  shoulders  or  on  the  back.  Perhaps, 
however,  in^  is  an  error  for  7nx,  thy  sides,  this  being  the  word  required 
by  the  context  and  the  one  favoured  by  (6^-,  which  has  cS^os  here  as  well 
as  in  Is.  60'  66'^,  where  M  has  li'.  So  also  Aq.  S  0.  Sta.  retains  the 
reading  of  the  text,  but  adds  yy;  Sj."\ — -iu'n]  For  jna — nrx.  Cf.  12*. — 
r>2]  For  n>33.  Cf.  Gn.  38"  etc.;  Ges.  ^  »"• «  (*>.  Burger  rds,  onsp  P'.a, 
at  home  by  my  friends. 


14'''  341 


b.      THE  JEWS  AND   THE   NATIONS    (CH.    I4). 

The  thought  of  the  chapter  is  one,  but  it  takes  four  phases  in  the 
course  of  its  development.     The  first  has  to  do  with 

(i)  The  recovery  of  the  Holy  City  (14^'^). — The  city  is  destined 
to  be  taken  and  plundered,  but  Yahweh  will  appear  and  by  a  stu- 
pendous miracle  throw  the  nations  into  confusion  and  rescue  the 
remaining  inhabitants. 

1.  The  general  announcement  with  which  the  chapter  opens  is 
addressed  to  Jerusalem.  Lo,  it  says,  there  cometh  a  day  for  Yah- 
weh, a  day  appointed  by  him  for  the  fulfilment  of  his  purpose, 
when  thy  spoil  shall  be  divided  within  thee.  Note  the  difiference  in 
tone  and  content  between  this  statement  and  the  opening  verses  of 
ch.  12.  In  the  latter  passage  the  writer  does  not  admit  that  Jeru- 
salem is  in  danger.  He  represents  it  as  rather  a  menace  to  the  sur- 
rounding peoples.  Here  he  is  obliged  to  face  the  prospect,  if  not 
the  reality,  of  a  successful  invasion  of  the  country.  This,  however, 
is  only  one  side  of  his  vision.  There  is  a  brighter  one  to  be  revealed. 
— 2.  The  above  interpretation  takes  for  granted  that  the  fuller  de- 
scription of  the  fate  of  the  city  which  follows  is  by  the  same  author. 
This  is  denied  by  Marti  and  others,  chiefly  because  here  for  a 
space  Yahweh  speaks  and  Jerusalem  is  in  the  third  person.  But 
this,  as  has  been  shown,  is  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  denying  the 
genuineness  of  a  passage,  since  such  changes  occur  in  cases  in  which 
the  hand  of  the  original  author  is  generally  recognised.  See  the 
comments  on  12^  ^•.  Note  also  that  throughout  the  rest  of  this 
chapter  Jerusalem  is  in  the  third  person.  Finally,  its  retention  is 
required  by  "the  nations"  of  v.  ^  The  first  clause,  /  will  gather 
all  the  nations  to  Jerusalem  for  battle,  recalls  Ezekiel's  great  proph- 
ecy (38/.)  concerning  Gog,  from  which  some  of  the  more  striking 
features  of  the  chapter  were  evidently  borrowed.*  Here,  how- 
ever, there  is  no  attempt  to  create  interest  or  sympathy  by  dwelling 
on  the  size  and  character  of  the  invading  army.  The  author  is 
more  concerned  with  the  modifications  of  Ezekiel's  predictions 
which  time  and  events  have  made  necessary.     The  prophet  of  the 

*  Cj.  Ez.  3819  ff.  3gio.  also  Is.  13-  "•• 


342  ZECHARIAH 

Exile  does  not  allow  Gog  and  his  hordes  actually  to  attack  Jerusa- 
lem. They  no  sooner  appear  on  "  the  mountains  of  Israel"  than 
the  jealousy  of  Yahweh  is  excited  and  he  empties  the  vials  of  his 
wrath  u[)on  them.  The  author  of  this  passage  does  not  insist  on 
the  inviolability  of  the  city,  but  goes  so  far  as  to  teach  that  it  will 
again  be  overcome  and  treated  as  captured  cities  in  his  day  were 
usually  treated.  The  city  shall  be  taken,  he  says,  and  the  houses 
plundered,  and  the  women  ravished.  Cf.  Am.  7"  Is.  13'-  ''' ^•. 
He  even  foresees  another  deportation,  in  which  half  of  the  city  shall 
go  forth  into  captivity.  Then,  as  explained  in  the  next  verse,  Yah- 
weh will  interfere,  so  that  the  rest  of  the  people  shall  not  he  cut  off. 
If  this  passage  were  by  the  same  author  as  13^  ^•,  the  remnant 
would  now  be  only  a  sixth  of  the  original  population. 

3.  The  rest  of  the  paragraph  has  a  decidedly  apocalyptic  char- 
acter. Thus  there  is  here  no  hint  that  the  Jews  will  do  anything 
in  their  own  defence  when  their  capital  is  attacked.  Nor  will  Yah- 
weh attempt  to  avert  the  catastrophe,  but,  after  the  city  has  been 
taken,  he  will  come  forth  and  fight  with  those  nations,  the  nations 
that  he  himself,  according  to  v.  ^,  has  brought  thither  to  display  his 
power  upon  them.  C/".  Ez.  39-^-.  In  9"  Yahweh  comes  " in  the 
tempests  of  the  South";  here  he  seems  to  descend  from  heaven. 
Cf.  Mi.  i^.  At  any  rate,  the  next  clause,  as  when  hefighleth  in  the 
day  of  conflict,  is  an  apparent  allusion  to  Jb.  38"  ^-j  whose  "stores 
of  hail  ,  .  .  reserved  .  .  .  against  the  day  of  conflict"  must  be 
located  in  the  sky.  Cf.  Jos.  10".  The  author  cannot,  like  Joel 
(4/3'°),  have  thought  of  him  as  issuing  from  Sion,  since  the  city  is 
supposed  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  The  day  of  conflict  is 
interpreted  by  some  as  a  general  expression,*  by  others  as  an  allu- 
sion to  a  particular  event,  hke  the  Exodus;t  but  it  were  better,  per- 
haps, to  combine  the  two  views,  for,  even  if  the  writer  intended  a 
general  reference,  he  must  have  had  an  event  like  the  Exodus  in 
mind. — 4.  When  Yahweh  descends  to  meet  his  people's  enemies, 
his  feet  shall  stand  on  the  Mount  of  Olives.  There  follows  a  de- 
scription of  the  situation  of  this  eminence,  which  Marti  pronounces 
an  interpolation.     He  thinks  it  was  not  necessary  to  tell  the  people 

♦  So  Bla.,  Hi.,  Koh.,  Prcs.,  Rcu.,  et  al. 

t  So  Jer.,  Grot.,  d  Lap.,  Roscnm.,  M.-iu.,  F,\v.,  Burger,  H<1.,  el  al. 


14*"'  343 

of  the  city  that  the  mountain  was  over  against  Jerusalem  eastward. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  only  reason  that  can  be  given  for  his  opin- 
ion. The  clause  is  not  important.  The  omission  of  it,  therefore, 
causes  no  embarrassment,  for  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  tJie  Mount 
of  Olives,  as  it  is  here  called  for  the  first  time  in  the  Old  Testament, 
is  "the  mountain  that  is  on  the  east  of  the  city,"  over  which,  ac- 
cording to  Ez.  1 1^,  the  glory  of  Yahweh  hovered  when  he  took  his 
departure  from  the  temple.  This  mountain,  the  modem  name  for 
which  is  Jebel  et-Tur,  is  not  a  single  peak,  but  a  ridge,  with  three 
or  four  more  or  less  prominent  summits,  the  highest  rising  2,723 
feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  The  part  of  it  over  against  the  city 
is  everywhere  higher  than  any  part  of  the  city  itself.  It  therefore 
completely  obstructs  the  view  in  that  direction,  but  furnishes  an 
excellent  pedestal  for  such  structures  as  the  Russian  Belvedere. 
When  Yahweh  makes  his  descent  upon  it,  it  shall  be  cleft  through 
its  middle,  eastward  and  westward,  by  a  very  great,  that  is,  a  very 
wide,  as  well  as  a  very  deep,  transverse  gorge;  for,  under  his  feet, 
half  of  the  mountain,  rent  from  its  foundation,  shall  recede  nortli- 
ward,  and  the  other  half  of  it,  in  like  manner,  southward.  Cf  Ez. 
38''  ^-  Mi.  i^  Na.  i'  Ju.  5'  Hb.  3"  Ps.  18'/^  I  K.  19"  ^■. 

5.  The  object  of  the  author  in  v.  *  seems  to  have  been  to  present 
an  impressive  picture  of  the  power  of  Yahweh.  He  now  completes 
it  by  the  addition  of  another  realistic  touch ;  as  a  result  of  the  vio- 
lent change  in  the  contour  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  Gihon,  the  inter- 
mittent spring  in  the  Valley  of  Kidron,  now  called  "The  Spring  of 
St.  Mary"  or  "The  Spring  of  the  Steps,"  shall  be  stopped,  as  it  had 
been  by  other  means  more  than  once  in  the  history  of  Jerusalem. 
Cf  2  Ch.  32*-  ^*'.  In  explanation  of  this  result  he  says,  secondly, 
that  the  gorge  of  the  mountains,  the  great  cleft  already  described, 
shall  reach  to  the  side  of  it  (Gihon),  that  is,  across  the  Valley  of 
Kidron  to  the  hill  on  which  the  City  of  David  was  situated.  These 
are  simple  and  natural  details  perfectly  intelligible  to  one  who  is 
acquainted  with  the  Mount  of  Olives,  but,  by  a  curious  error,  they 
have  been  so  distorted  in  the  Massoretic  text  that  the  stoppage  of 
the  spring  has  become  a  flight  by  the  gorge  through  the  mountain 
like  the  escape  of  the  fathers  from  the  Egyptians  by  the  miraculous 
passage  through  the  Red  Sea.     Later  some  one  added  a  compari- 


344  ZECHARIAH 

son  with  the  flight  before  the  earthquake  in  the  days  of  Uzziah  king 
of  Jiidah.  This  is  no  doubt  the  earthquake  mentioned  in  Am.  i\ 
which,  according  to  Josephus,  occurred  while  Uzziah  was  trying  to 
force  his  way  into  the  temple,  against  the  protests  of  the  priests, 
to  offer  incense  on  the  golden  altar.*  This  scene,  with  which,  as  a 
historical  event,  every  one  was  familiar,  the  glossator  says,  will  be 
repeated  when  Yahweh  cleaves  the  Mount  of  Olives  asunder. f 
There  is  little  comfort  in  such  a  prospect.  Compare  that  presented 
by  the  latter  half  of  the  verse,  where  the  original  author,  continu- 
ing his  description,  says.  Then  shall  Yahweh  thy  God  come,  and  all 
his  holy  ones  with  him;  the  holy  ones  being  the  angels  who  serve  as 
his  attendants  and  messengers.^  Here  the  description  of  the  deliv- 
erance of  Jerusalem  is  for  the  time  being  discontinued.  For  the 
fate  of  the  nations,  see  w.  ^^^ 

1.  N3  or]  The  sg.  indefinite,  here  only.  Cf.  Je.  50"-  3i  Mai.  3'9/4'. 
— pSm]  Wfien,  etc.  GesJ'"-  1  (-"K  The  rhythmical  character  of  this 
verse  favours  the  idea  expressed  in  the  comments,  that  it  is  the  theme  of 
which  the  more  prosaic  part  that  follows  is  the  development. — 2.  'nDDxi] 
Marti,  as  remarked  in  the  comments,  rejects  this  verse,  for  one  reason 
because  Yahweh  speaks  here  in  his  own  person.  He  is  then  obliged 
to  omit  onn  dmjj  in  v.  '.  A  simpler  way  of  meeting  this  difficulty  would 
be  to  rd.  here  hdni,  and  he  will  gather. — nnnSca]  This  noun,  when  it  is 
governed  by  3  or  S,  almost  always  (103  :  6)  has  the  art. — lorji]  V,  vasta- 
buntur  =  mrji. — njSjB'n]  Qr.,  njaoc'n,  a  less  objectionable  word  which 
in  15  Kenn.  mss.  has  taken  the  place  of  the  original  reading.  On  the 
change  in  the  tense,  see  Ges.  ^i'^-  i-i^-  2. — 3.  onn  dmjj]  These  words 
presuppose  v.  2  and  are  therefore  omitted  by  Marti.  Cf.  v.  K — DV3]  Rd., 
with  B,  1D3. — 4.  Ninn  ova]  Om.,  with  oriental  mss.  and  &. — onpn — irNJ 
On  the  genuineness  of  this  clause,  see  the  comments.— ^ainnn  -\n] 
The  reasons  for  omitting  this  phrase  are:  (i)  It  is  unnecessarily  explicit. 
The  original  author  would  have  used  ■\nn^  as  he  does  below.  (2)  It  is 
easily  explained  by  the  insertion  of  Dipc — irs  and  the  consequent  sepa- 
ration of  the  subj.  of  yp2j  from  its  antecedent. — n^j]  The  abs.  without 
the  art.,  like  the  cstr.,  has  _,  except  in  Is.  40*  (nv.)*  ^]^.  i"  i  S.  17"  being 
an  error  for  pj.  See  also  S'';;3,  Is.  i5<,  and  Si"??,  Is.  16^.  On  the  con- 
struction, the  ace.  of  condition    see  Ges.^'"*-  *  ^'^K     It  is  here  fem. — 

♦  C/.  AnI.,  ix,  10.  4;  2  Ch.  26'8  b._ 

t  This,  of  course,  is  wiiat  is  meant  by  as  ye  fled,  for  the  most  careless  scrilje  would  hardly, 
as  Marti  imagines,  represent  those  of  his  own  time  as  the  contemporaries  of  Uzziah.  For  a 
prccisi-ly  similar  case,  see  8". 

XCj.  Dt.  ss'Ps.  So^n.  J  I,.  15I6. 


14'"'  345 

na^T — vsnc]  (S^,  t6  i^/xKrv  avroO  irpbs  d^aroXAs  /ca2  ^dXacro-ai',  (gALQr^  ,-^ 
■Sjfjuffv  aiiTov  irpds  dvaroXas  Kal  to  ^/xktv  avroO  irpbs  6d\aa<Tav;  clearly 
mistaken,  because  contradictory  of  what  follows. — ind — rsnc]  Marti 
would  omit  all  these  words,  but,  if  the  verse  must  be  further  shortened 
to  make  it  conform  to  his  metrical  scheme,  the  clause  that  follows,  which 
simply  enlarges  on  the  thought  here  expressed,  might  better  be  sacrificed. 
5.  anD:i]  The  pf.  2d  pi.  Qal  from  Du.  This  is  the  occidental  reading, 
and  it  is  found  in  almost  all  the  mss.  that  have  been  collated.  It  is  sup- 
ported by  II  S",  and  it  has  naturally  been  adopted  in  the  printed  texts  and 
by  a  majority  of  the  commentators.  So  Jer.,  Ki.,  Dru.,  New,,  Rosenm., 
Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Burger,  Hd.,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Klie.,  Pres.,  Pu.,  Or.,  Wri., 
GASm.,  et  al.  The  oriental  reading,  however,  is  D^pji,  the  pf.  3d  sg. 
Niph.  from  anD,  slop.  It  is  found  in  only  4  of  the  mss.  cited  by  de  R.,  but 
it  has  the  support  of  C5  (U  S*"  Aq.  S  9,  and  it  is  the  one  preferred  by  Jose- 
phus,  Ra.,  and,  among  Christian  scholars,  Marck,  Dathe,  Fliigge,  Bla., 
We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.,  el  al.  The  latter  reading,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  the 
one  adopted  by  the  latest  authorities.  These  scholars,  however,  have 
strangely  overlooked  one  point,  and  thus  failed  to  seize  the  writer's  pre- 
cise meaning.  This  point  is  the  peculiar  force  of  the  word  ano.  It  oc- 
curs elsewhere  in  a  literal  sense  eight  times,  viz.,  Gn.  2615.  is  2  K.  3"-  -^ 
2  Ch.  323-  *■  30  Ne.  4'.  In  the  last  case  it  is  used  of  closing  the  breaches 
of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  but  in  all  the  rest  the  thing  closed  is  a  well  or  a 
spring,  and  this  is  the  usage  also  in  Aram.  If,  therefore,  the  oriental 
is  the  correct  reading,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  subject  is  not  this 
or  that  valley,  but  one  of  the  springs  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem;  and 
since  there  are  only  two,  it  ought  not  to  be  impossible  to  discover  which 
of  them  is  meant.  Josephus,  in  his  description  of  the  earthquake  in  the 
reign  of  Uzziah,  mentions  a  place  called  Eroge.  This  name  is,  no  doubt, 
a  corruption  of  En-rogel,  and,  since  the  historian  evidently  had  this  pas- 
sage in  mind,  one  might  infer  that  the  spring  stopped  by  the  convulsion 
here  described  is  the  one  just  below  the  junction  of  the  valleys  of  Kidron 
and  Hinnom  now  called  "  the  well  of  Job."  A  closer  examination  of  the 
language  used  by  Josephus,  however,  shows  that  he,  like  some  modern 
writers,  confounded  En-rogel  with  Gihon,  and  that  the  place  to  which  he 
refers  is  the  site  of  the  spring  now  called  "The  Spring  of  St.  Mary." 
See  further  on  the  question  of  the  identity  of  Gihon  and  En-rogel,  JBL., 
xxii,  103  ff.  If,  then,  it  is  a  spring  that  is  to  be  stopped,  that  spring  is 
probably  Gihon,  and  its  name  should  be  substituted  for  the  meaning- 
less phrase  m  nu.  The  origin  of  the  error  can  easily  be  traced.  The 
scribe,  in  copying  the  text,  after  writing  the  first  two  letters  of  pn^j,  look- 
ing up,  caught,  not  the  word  that  he  had  been  writing,  but  ann  nm,  and 
nearly  finished  it  before  he  saw  his  mistake.  Then,  instead  of  correct- 
ing the  error,  he  proceeded  with  his  task.  This  is  a  simpler  emendation 
than  that  proposed  by  We.  (aun  nu)  which,  moreover,  carries  with  it  the 


346  ZECHARIAH 

mistaken  assumption  that  the  Valley  of  Hinnom  was  on  the  east  of 
Jerusalem. — The  emendation  suggested  at  first  sight  seems  to  find  no 
support  in  the  following  clause,  but  it  is  only  necessary,  for  Sxn,  to  read 
iSxN,  to  produce  the  entirely  satisfactory  statement  that  the  gorge  of  the 
mountains  shall  reach  to  the  side  of  it,  i.  e.,  the  side  of  Gihon.  On  the 
construction  with  pj,  see  Hg.  2". — '"j]  Rd.,  with  48  Kenn.  mss.,  N''J. — 
Sxn]  See  above.  The  sf.,  being  followed  by  another  1,  was  easily  over- 
looked.— orDji2]  Here  clearly  a  derivative  from  Du,  as  both  the  occi- 
dentals and  the  orientals  point  it.  So  also  H  &  01. — >jdc]  (S,  iv  rals 
T)/j.^pais,  except  L. — ^hSn]  Rd.  T'h'^n,  the  final  T  having  been  lost  by  hap- 
log.  So  Marti,  Kit.— "^o]  Rd.,  with  83  mss.,  (35  B  &  01,  ^:\  So  We., 
Now.,  Marti,  Kit.— a>un,->]  So  C5  H.  Rd.,  with  &  d,  vuhp.  So  New., 
Reu.,  We.— lav]  Rd.,  with  45  mss.,  (S  U  &  ®  S*",  isy.  So  Dathe, 
Houb.,  New.,  Bla.,  Hd.,  Reu.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  GASm.,  Kit.,  van  H., 
et  al. 

(2)  The  transformation  ofJudah  (14"*"). — The  author  interrupts 
himself  at  this  point  to  describe  another  miracle  by  which  the 
country  about  Jerusalem  will  become  a  Paradise. 

6.  With  the  coming  of  Yahweh  will  begin  a  new  era  for  Jeru- 
salem and  Judah,  the  most  peaceful,  blissful  and  glorious  in  their 
history.  The  description  of  it  should  begin  with  this  verse.  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  the  text,  which  now  says  that  there  shall  then 
be  no  light,  is  corrupt,  and  that  the  original  reading  must  have  been. 
There  shall  no  longer  he  cold  and  frost,  such  as  sometimes  add  to  the 
discomforts  of  a  Syrian  winter.*  In  other  words,  the  climate  of 
the  country  will  be  so  modified  that  it  will  never  be  too  cold  for  the 
comfort  of  the  fortunate  inhabitants. — 7.  The  abolition  of  cold 
and  frost  will  be  accompanied  by  a  still  more  miraculous  transfor- 
mation in  existing  conditions;  for  thenceforward  there  shall  be  con- 
tinuous, lit.,  one,  day.  At  this  point  the  description  of  the  coming 
day  is  interrupted  by  a  pathetic  outburst  from  a  pious  scribe  who 
seems  to  have  thought  the  day  here  promised  to  be  **the  day  of 
Yahweh."  It  is  knoivn  to  Yahweh,  he  says,  meaning  thereby  not 
so  much  the  event  as  the  date  of  its  arrival. — There  follows  an 
explanation  of  the  rather  ambiguous  expression  with  which  the 
verse  began.  The  day  in  question  is  first  defined  negatively  as  not 
alternating  day  and  night.    Then,  to  make  his  meaning  unmis- 

•  The  temperature  in  the  hills  of  Palestine  seldom  falls  below  the  freezing-point,  but  the 
winds  that  sweep  over  the  country  in  the  winter  often  cause  the  poorly  fed  and  scantily  clothed 
inlk-i))itants  extreme  suffering. 


14""  347 

takable,  tlie  writer  adds,  yea,  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  at  eventide 
there  shall  be  light.^ 

8.  The  picUire  is  not  yet  complete.  An  oriental  Paradise  must 
have  what  Jerusalem  and  Judah  always  lacked,  plenty  of  water. 
Thus,  "  a  river  went  out  of  Eden  to  water  the  garden  "  of  Gn.  2,  and 
in  Ezekiel's  description  of  the  Palestine  of  the  future  a  stream  issues 
from  under  the  threshold  of  the  sanctuary  and  flows  eastward  with 
growing  volume,  carrying  health  and  fertihty  to  that  entire  region. 
Cf.  47*  ^•.  The  picture  here  presented,  like  Jo.  4/3^^,  is  an  adap- 
tation of  that  of  Ezekiel.  The  modifications  are  interesting.  Thus, 
tliere  shall  go  forth,  not  from  the  sanctuary,  hxxi  from  Jerusalem, 
living  water,  fresh  water  from  an  imfailing  source,  flowing,  half  of 
it  toward  the  eastern  sea,  and  half  of  it  toward  the  western  sea,  the 
same  being  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Mediterranean.  Finally,  an 
inference  from  Ez.  47'"  is  here  put  into  the  form  of  a  statement  to 
the  effect  that  these  streams,  unlike  most  of  those  with  which  the 
Jews  were  familiar,  would  be  perennial;  in  summer  and  in  winter 
shall  it,  the  water,  be,  continue  to  flow.  Rain,  therefore,  would 
be  as  unnecessary  as  in  Egypt.     Cf.  v.  ^^. 

9.  Thus  far  the  writer's  vision  has  been  restricted  to  Palestine, 
and,  indeed,  apparently  to  that  part  of  it  known  by  the  name  of 
Judea.  The  scope  of  this  verse  is  universal.  It  asserts  that  Yah- 
weh  shall  be  king  over,  not  merely  the  whole  of  Palestine,  but  all  the 
earth;  and  this  is  followed  by  the  declaration  that  in  that  day  Yah- 
weh  shall  be  one,  and  his  name  one;  in  other  words,  that  Yahewh 
shall  then  be  worshipped  by  all  men,  and  that  under  the  one  name, 
Yahweh,  revealed  to  the  Chosen  People.  Now,  one  can  hardly 
claim  that  all  this  is  foreign  to  the  thought  of  the  author  of  the 
chapter.  In  vv.  ^^  ^-  he  expresses  himself  in  a  similar  fashion. 
In  view,  however,  of  the  lack  of  relation  with  the  following  as  well 
as  the  preceding  context,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  he  did  not  so 
express  himself  in  this  connection. — 10.  This  verse,  on  the  other 
h-and,  is  precisely  in  line  with  the  thought  of  v.  ^.  It  continues  the 
description  of  Jerusalem  and  its  future  surroundings,  for  the  con- 
figuration of  the  country,  it  seems,  is  to  be  changed  as  well  as  the 
meteorological  and  other  conditions.     The  city  will  be  the  centre, 

*  Cl.  Is.  25  30=6  Rev.  2l25  22^  Is.  6o'3  f •. 


348  ZECHARIAH 

and  the  whole  land,  hitherto  in  places  considerably  higher,  and  in 
others  considerably  lower,  shall  stretch  round  it  like  a  plain.  The 
limits  of  the  plain  in  two  directions  are  given.  It  will  extend /row 
Geba  to  Rimmon.  The  former  of  these  places  is  the  modern  Jeha 
on  Wadi  Suweinit,  opposite  Mikhmas  (Michmash),  al)out  six  miles 
north  of  Jerusalem.  Cf.  i  S.  14^  In  the  reign  of  Asa  it  was  forti- 
fied l)y  this  king  (i  K.  15"^),  and  from  that  time  onward  was  re- 
garded as  the  northern  limit  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah.  Hence  the 
expression  in  2  K.  23^  "from  Geba  to  Beersheba."  The  place  of 
the  latter  is  here  supplied  by  Rimmon.  This  is  without  doubt  the 
" En-rimmon"  of  Ne.  11'",  for  which  Jos.  15^"  has  "Ain  and  Rim- 
mon," and  Jos.  19^  and  i  Ch.  4^"  have  "Ain,  Rimmon."  It  has 
been  identified  with  Umm  er-Rammamin,  a  site  about  ten  miles 
north-east  of  Beersheba  with  a  fine  spring  and  the  ruins  of  a  con- 
siderable town.  It  was  among  the  places  reoccupied  by  the  Jews 
on  their  return  from  exile.  Cf.  Ne.  11^  ^•.  Beersheba  was  an- 
other; but  perhaps  when  this  passage  was  written  it  had  been  lost 
or  abandoned.  The  significance  of  these  geographical  details  has 
been  discussed  in  the  Introduction,  where  it  was  shown  that  a 
writer  whose  vision  was  bounded  by  the  places  here  named  can- 
not have  been  the  author  of  chs.  9-1 1.  In  the  midst  of  the  plain 
just  described,  which,  as  appears  from  v.  *,  will  be  bounded  on  the 
east  by  the  Dead  Sea,  and  on  the  west  by  the  Mediterranean, 
Jerusalem  shall  sit  aloft  in  its  place,  on  account  of  the  depression 
of  the  surrounding  country  more  prominent  than  ever.  Cf.  Mi. 
4*  Is.  2^.  There  follows  what  looks  like  an  outline  of  the  limits  of 
the  city  corresponding  to  the  description  already  given  of  the  ex- 
tent of  the  country  belonging  to  it.  At  first  sight  it  is  a  little  con- 
fusing, but,  if  the  Gate  of  Benjamin  be  identified  with  the  Sheep 
Gate  of  Ne.  12^",  and  located  north  of  the  temple  in  the  wall  con- 
necting the  Tower  of  Hananel  with  the  north-east  corner  of  the 
sacred  enclosure  in  its  original  dimensions,*  and  the  phrase,  to  the 
site  of  the  First  Gate,  omitted  as  a  gloss,  the  meaning  of  the  author 
will  become  apparent.  He  gives  first  the  width  of  the  city  from 
east  to  west:  it  shall  extend /row  the  Gale  of  Benjamin,  which  al- 
though it  was  not  so  far  north,  was  farther  east  than  the  Tower  of 

*  C/.  Je.  37"  38^  Guthe,  ZDPV.,  v.  282. 


14  349 

Hananel,  fo  the  Corner  Gate.  This  gate,  as  its  name  indicates,  was 
at  the  north-west  comer  of  the  city,*  and  therefore  in  the  so-called 
"Second  Wall."  The  length  from  north  to  south  is  marked  by 
two  objects  familiar  to  those  for  whom  the  passage  was  written, 
the  Tower  of  Hananel  at  the  north-west  corner  of  the  present 
Haram,f  and  the  king's  wine-press,  which  must  have  been  in  or 
near  the  Valley  of  Hinnom.  Jerusalem  as  thus  described  would 
be  about  as  large  as  that  part  of  the  city  now  within  the  walls,  but 
it  would  not  occupy  the  same  ground,  the  southern  limit  being  now 
some  distance  outside  the  walls.  The  language  here  used  implies 
that  it  was  not  so  large  when  the  passage  was  written. — 11.  The 
city  having  been  restored  in  these  generous  proportions,  they,  the 
people  whose  right  it  is  by  the  favour  of  Yahweh,  shall  dwell  in 
it  undisturbed;  for  there  shall  not  again  be  a  curse,  bringing  de- 
struction, hut  Jerusalem  shall  be  a  safe  habitation.  Cf.  Je.  33*' 
Ez.  34"  '■. 

6.  H'lni]  (gAor  ^  Q^^  IjuI;  gjnce  the  expression  Ninn  or 2  is  frequent  in 
chs.  12-14,  both  with  and  without  nini,  and  S"  regularly  omits  the  vb.,  it 
seems  impossible  to  determine  the  original  reading.  See  the  comments 
on  12'. — 'ji  niN]  The  text  is  evidently  corrupt,  because,  as  explained  in 
the  comments,  it  does  not  say  what  the  author  must  have  intended. 
Most  of  the  attempts  to  emend  must  be  rejected  on  the  same  ground. 
The  rest  are  objectionable  for  some  other  reason.  E\v.  renders,  there 
shall  not  be  light  and  (alternating  with  it)  cold  and  ice.  This  is  unsatis- 
factory', because  the  terms  of  the  hypothetical  comparison  are  not  oppo- 
sites.  The  attempt  of  We.  to  remedy  this  defect  is  exposed  to  criticism 
from  another  point  of  view.  He  substitutes  oin  for  ii>s,  thus  getting 
there  shall  not  be  heat  and  cold  and  frost.  So  Oort,  Now.,  Marti,  Kit. 
The  objection  to  this  proposal  is  that  Din,  if  it  had  ever  had  a  place  in 
the  text,  would  hardly  have  been  mistaken  for  a  word  so  different  and 
so  much  less  suitable  in  this  connection.  Neither  of  these  objections  can 
be  brought  against  the  simpler  expedient  of  replacing  nix  by  ni?,  and 
reading,  as  proposed  in  the  comments,  there  shall  no  longer  be  cold 
and  frost.  The  iin  of  M,  is  easily  explained  by  its  appearance  in  v.  ^. 
The  next  two  words,  as  now  pointed,  are  usually  rendered  jewels  (stars) 
shall  dwindle,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that,  with  ^  B  &  ®  S, 
one  should  rd.  vns?.\  nni"?  i.e.,  as  above,  cold  and  frost. — 7.  nm^ — vSin] 
The  incongruousness  of  these  words  is  proof  that  they  are  an  inter- 
polation. Marti  would  read  ;?n;  but  with  this  prtc.  the  pronoun  would 
*  Cj.  2  K.  1413  Je.  3i38;  JBL.,  xxii,  136  f}.  t  Q.  Je.  si^s  Ne.  3I  i2». 


350  ZECHARIAH 

probably  have  taken  the  second  place.  Cf.  Gcs.  ^  m-  <;  Nrd.  5^  '"■  '^  "'. 
QI  connects  this  clause  with  the  words  that  follow,  thus,  it  is  known 
before  Yahweh,  not  as  light  by  day.  nor  the  opposite  by  night.  8,  nini] 
Wanting  in  <&  &.  Cf.  v.  ". — cc]  In  Hebrew  water  is  pi.;  but  this  is 
not  the  English  idiom.  In  the  EV'.,  therefore,  the  sg.  should  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  pi.,  not  only  of  the  noun,  but  of  the  pronouns  of  which 
it  is  the  antecedent. — n>.T']  &  om.  We.  retains  the  word,  but  puts 
it  into  the  pi.  with  U.  So  Now.,  Marti,  Kit.  The  change,  however, 
is  unwarranted.  The  thought  of  the  author  is  correctly  reproduced  in 
(6  by  fffrai  oiJtws.  If  he  had  meant  to  make  the  subj.  of  this  vb.  O'c, 
he  would  have  repeated  NX',  as  ul  does  in  ^•<pDl  Jin>. — 9 .  On  the  gen- 
uineness of  this  verse,  see  the  comments. — 10.  aiD^]  The  absence  of  the 
connective  can  hardly  be  intentional.  Read,  therefore,  with  B  &,  3Di. 
So  Houb.,  New.  On  the  gender,  see  Ges.  ^'"-  '  c).  The  word  never 
elsewhere  means  change,  a  fact  that  should  have  made  Ko.,  et  al.,  think 
twice  before  rendering  it  so  in  this  connection. — nanys]  The  absence  of 
the  art.  seems  to  have  been  intended  to  prevent  the  reader  from  suppos- 
ing, as  do  Ko.,  et  al.,  that  the  author  had  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  in  mind. 
Cf.  Ges.  ^35.  2  (*)  (./)  (2),  Ace.  to  Kit.  this  word  is  omitted  by  some  au- 
thorities; but,  if  3D  means  lie  about,  it  is  necessary  to  the  complete  ex- 
pression of  the  author's  idea. — 3Jj]  With  the  force  of  S  ajjc.  Cf.  Jos. 
157;  Ges.5"8-  *  c*). — riDNn]  Not,  asone  would  gather  from  Ges.  5"-  ?•  R- «, 
the  prtc,  but  the  pf.  3d  sg.  fem.,  to  agree  with  ri2iff\  TheN  is  therefore 
here  a  vowel  letter,  and  the  correct  vocalisation  that  of  Ben  Naphtali, 
ncN"!.  Similar  forms  occur  elsewhere  in  the  prtc.  as  well  as  in  the  pf. 
Cf.  Ho.  io»  Ju.  4-',  etc.  Van  H.  rds.  onn,  with  oSu'n^  for  its  subj.  On 
the  (adverbial)  relation  of  this  vb.  to  the  next,  see  Ges.  ^'20.2  («)_ — 
liE'Nin — nyi]  This  phrase  is  not  only  superfluous  but  unintelligible.  The 
attempt  by  Ko.,  et  al.,  to  save  it  by  repesenting  the  author  as  taking  his 
stand  at  the  middle  of  the  northern  boundary  and  pointing  out  the  limits 
east  and  west  bf  that  position  ignores  all  precedents.  It- is  doubtless  a 
gloss  to  o-'jiD  '\';x}  ny,  or,  as  it  should  read,  njD  '\yv  "ly  (2  K.  14"),  by  some 
one  who  identified  the  Corner  Gate  with  the  so-called  ny^''7\  nyii*  of  Ne. 
3«  12".  On  the  omission  of  the  art.,  see  Ges.  ^'^e.  6.  R.  1  («>,  Marti 
would  om.  much  more  of  the  verse,  viz.,  as  far  as  St<jjn  inclusive;  but  this 
seems  too  much  to  sacrifice  to  his  metrical  theory.  See  also  Kit. — Snjci] 
Rd.,  with  33  mss.,  B  &,  SnjDD\  So  Dathe,  New.  Ace.  to  Bo.  it  is  a  case 
of  breviloquence.  So  Hi.,  Ke.,  Ko.,  Wri.,  et  al. — 11.  na  larn]  Marti 
oms.  these  words,  and  they  do  seem  superfluous.  If  they  are  retained, 
they  should  be  attached  to  the  preceding  verse. 

(3)  TJie  fate  of  the  nations  (14'^"*''). — In  this  paragraph  the 
pro[)hct  resumes  his  description  of  the  relief  of  Jerusalem.  The 
nations  and  their  cattle  will  be  smitten  by  a  swift  and  deadly 


I4--  351 

plague,  and  when,  in  their  desperation,  they  turn  their  arms 
against  one  another,  Judah  will  take  advantage  of  the  opportu- 
nity to  attack  and  destroy  them. 

12.  The  Jews  believed  that  Yahweh  controlled  all  the  calam- 
ities to  which  mankind  were  subject,  and  that  he  employed  them 
to  correct  or  destroy  those  who  offended  him.*  In  38^**  ^-  Ezekiel 
threatens  Gog  with  a  variety  of  such  inflictions,  the  first  three  being 
earthquake,  panic  and  pestilence.  The  author  of  this  passage 
introduces  the  same  three,  but  in  a  different  order.  The  earth- 
quake he  has  already  described.  Now  comes  a  plague  with  which 
Yahweh  will  smite  all  the  peoples  that  have  served,  taken  military 
service,  against  Jerusalem.]  The  effects  of  it  are  described  in  de- 
tail. When  men  are  attacked  by  it,  their  flesh  shall  rot  away  while 
they  stand  on  their  feet ;  as  if  from  leprosy,  only,  of  course,  much 
more  rapidly.f  The  mere  mention  of  such  a  mode  of  death  makes 
one's  flesh  creep;  how  much  more  a  detailed  description!  Yet  the 
writer  seems  to  dwell  with  satisfaction  on  the  horrible  particulars, 
as  he  recites  how  their  eyes  shall  rot  away  in  their  sockets,  and  tlieir 
tongues  shall  rot  away  in  their  mouths.  The  passage  belongs  to  a 
class  of  which  Ps.  137^  is  the  most  frequently  cited  example.  The 
cruelty  of  which  they  are  the  expression  is  revolting,  but  it  is  hardly 
surprising  in  view  of  what  the  Jews  suffered  at  various  times  from 
their  oppressors. — 13.  The  effects  of  this  plague  will  not  be  meas- 
ured by  the  number  of  persons  who  actually  die  of  it.  In  such 
cases  there  is  apt  to  supervene  a  demoralisation  more  destructive 
than  the  original  epidemic.  Cf.  12*.  The  writer  predicts  that 
it  will  be  true  in  the  case  of  this  plague,  that  the  havoc  made  by 
disease  will  unman  the  bravest  of  the  hostile  soldiery,  and,  in  their 
frenzy  to  escape,  they  will  fall  upon  one  another  with  the  weapons 
intended  for  the  Jews.  There  shall  be  a  great  panic,  he  says,  add- 
ing, with  the  disregard  for  secondary  causes  characteristic  of  the 
Hebrews, /row  Yahweh.  In  a  few  words  he  gives  a  vivid  descrip- 
tion of  the  struggle:  They  shall  seize,  each  his  fellow,  with  one 
hand,  and  his  other  hand  shall  rise,  be  uplifted,  against  the  hand 
of  his  fellow.     It  will  be  a  fight  to  the  death  at  close  quarters.§ 

•  C/.  Am.  4«  «■  Lv.  26'<  «•  Dt.  28'5 «  t  Q.  Ez.  38==  2  K.  i^. 

t  Cf.  Lv.  26I6  Dt.  28='  '•.  §  C/.  Ju.  7=2  I  S.  14"  "•. 


352  ZECHARIAH 

14.  The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  ambiguous.  It  may  with 
equal  propriety,  so  far  as  Hebrew  usage  is  concerned,  be  rendered, 
Judah,  also,  shall  fight  in  Jerusalem  or  Judah,  also,  shall  fight 
against  Jerusalem;  but  the  latter  is  probably  what  the  writer  in- 
tended to  say.  So  the  Vulgate.  It  is  not,  however,  probable  that 
in  so  saying  he  meant  to  assert  or  imply  that  on  this  occasion  the 
Jews  outside  the  city  would  be  arrayed  against  its  rightful  inhabi- 
tants. The  situation  does  not  require  such  an  interpretation.  The 
nations,  according  to  v.  -,  have  captured  the  city,  but  Yahweh  has 
appeared  to  rescue  his  people.  The  conquerors,  thrown  into  con- 
fusion and  consternation,  are  engaged  in  destroying  one  another. 
Now,  it  would  be  ridiculous,  under  these  circumstances,  to  repre- 
sent the  rural  Jews  as  taking  the  part  of  the  gentiles.  If,  there- 
fore, the  clause  is  genuine,  and  against  is  the  proper  rendering 
for  the  preposition,  it  must  be  Jerusalem,  wholly  or  partly  occu- 
pied by  the  gentiles  and  attacked  by  Yahweh,  against  which  he 
means  to  say  that  Judah  will  fight.  This  position  can  be  main- 
tained without  reference  to  the  following  context.  When  that  is 
taken  into  account,  especially  if,  as  in  the  Greek,  early  Latin  and 
Syriac  versions,  the  verb  of  the  next  clause  is  rendered  actively, 
one  may  be  even  more  positive.  In  fact,  it  may  be  claimed  that 
the  above  is  the  only  consistent  interpretation,  since,  unless  Judah 
were  to  fight  against  the  gentiles,  there  would  be  no  sense  in  saying 
that  it  (they)  should  collect  the  wealth  of  all  the  nations,  gold,  and 
silver,  and  garments,  the  spoils  gathered  during  the  invasion  which 
must  now  be  abandoned,  in  great  abundance.     Cf.  Ez.  38^^  •39''   •. 

15.  The  text  now  returns  to  the  subject  of  the  plague,  and  con- 
tinues it,  as  if  this  verse  immediately  followed  v.  '",  by  adding  that 
there  shall  be  a  plague,  not  only  among  the  offending  nations  them- 
selves, but  also  on  the  horse,  the  mule,  the  camel,  and  the  ass,  even 
all  the  cattle  that  are  in  those  armies,  and  it  will  prove  as  destruc- 
tive to  them  as  this  plague,  namely,  the  one  described  in  v.  '^.  will 
be  to  the  gentiles  themselves.     Cf.  Ez.  38^°. 

12.  lU'N']  The  rel.  takes  the  place  of  the  second,  internal,  obj.  Cf. 
Ges.  ^  '"•  '. — D'syn]  An  exception,  as  already  (12')  noted,  to  the  usage  of 
this  chapter,  which  requires  dmjh,  just  as  in  i2»  dmjh  is  an  exception  to 
the  rule  in  that  chapter.     In  this  case  there  are  5  Kenn  mss.  in  which  the 


^4  353 

copyist  has  recognised  the  usage  and  changed  the  text  to  make  it  uniform. 
— pen]  This  word,  as  pointed,  is  the  Hiph.  inf.  abs.  and  an  appositive 
of  HNf.  Cf.  Gn.  1710  Lv.  6'  Dt.  152;  Ges.  ^  i"- 1  <").  The  other  forms  of 
the  same  vb.  found  in  this  verse,  however,  are  from  Niph.;  nor  is  the  vb. 
elsewhere  used  in  any  other  stem.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  the  orig- 
inal reading  in  this  case  was  pon.  The  inf.  abs.  is  precisely  adapted  to 
portray  the  suddenness  of  the  infliction  described  and  the  rapidity  with 
which  it  will  do  its  work.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  "■'■  ■•  (*>  (5)  and  (e), — nfa]  The  sf.  is 
distributive.  It  is  therefore  properly  rendered  in  B  by  caro  uniuscu- 
jiisque,  and  in  g*  by  ^ooij-BXS,  their  flesh.  Cf.  Ges.  ^ '".  s.  R, — 'j,  j^^ni]  A 
circumstantial  clause,  while  he,  etc.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  'ss-  1. — anifja]  Rd.  in 
harmony  with  the  analogous  cases,  mioa.  Cf.  Mai.  2«  '-.  So  Bla.,  We., 
Now.,  Marti,  Kit. — 13.  This  verse  and  the  one  following  are  rejected 
as  secondary  by  the  later  critics,  but,  if  the  interpretation  given  to  them 
in  the  comments  is  correct,  it  is  clear  that  they  have  a  place  in  the  au- 
thor's picture.  Note  DMjn  (v.  i^),  one  of  the  characteristic  words  of  this 
chapter. — n>m]  Om.  B  g>.— ninn]  (g  oms.,  exc.  a  few  curss.— 1>]  The 
ace.  construction  is  very  rare,  except  in  the  cases  of  sfs.  Rd.,  therefore, 
with  53  mss.,  no,  or,  with  &,  iny-\3.— nnSyi]  This  makes  tolerable  sense, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  (S  got  from  it  Kal  avfiirXaK-fjcreTai.,  E, 
et  implicabitur,  If,  et  conseretur,  S>,  >JlC»Zo,  and  21,  B'Snnt;  for  all  of 
which  np3ii  would  seem  to  be  a  more  probable  original. — 14,  min-']  The 
word  is  here  used  of  the  country,  and  is  therefore  fem.  Cf.  Ges.  §122-3  <«>. 
— o'rB'nia]  The  preposition  Sj;  is  used  with  the  place  against  which 
war  is  urged  16  t.,  and  a  almost  as  often.  Cf.  Jos.  10"  Ju.  is  q45.  62  nu 
I  S.  23'  2  S.  I22S.  27.  29  I  K.  201  Is.  20'  Ne.  42  2  Ch.  3520.  Cp.  Robinson, 
62/. — qONi]  Rd.,  with  (B  (Kal  a-wrd^ei),  ^  {colliget),  and  ^  (waXco). 
riDDNi. — 2-20]  Om.  as  inconsistent  with  the  meaning  of  DMjn  in  this 
chapter.  It  was  borrowed  from  122-  «. — 15.  Dion]  The  sg.  with  the  art. 
is  here  used  of  the  class.  Hence  it  may  properly  be  translated  by  the  pi., 
as  it  is  by  (S.  Cf.  Ges.  § '26-  3  (^^K — -iicnni]  Ordinarily  each  noun  after 
the  first  has  1.  Cf.  Gn.  i2'6  243s.  Sometimes,  however,  as  in  English, 
the  connective  is  used  only  with  the  last.  Here  it  marks  the  end  of  the 
series,  and  the  one  with  the  next  word  introduces  a  collective  including 
the  four  classes  enumerated.  Cf.  Ges.  ^'"-"o'e  (<»)and  (*>_ — n^ni]  In  28 
mss.  n\nr,  the  more  frequent  construction;  but  the  masc.  of  the  vb.  after 
a  fem.  subj.  is  also  allowable.  Cf.  Gn.  5^  Ex.  12I6;  Ges.  §  '«•  ••  R-  2.  The 
presence  of  So  has  no  influence.  Cf.  91'  ii'. — hojcd]  In  15  Kenn.  mss. 
DDJca ;  but  fH  is  preferable.  So  (5  Iff  g>  QI.  Marti  sacrifices  the  whole 
phrase  to  metrical  considerations. 

(4)  A  universal  sanctuary  (14^®"^*). — The  nations,  thus  chastened, 
will  be  disposed  to  recognise  Yahweh  as  the  true  God,  but,  if  any 
refuse  so  to  do  by  presenting  themselves  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles 


354  ZECHARIAH 

in  Jerusalem,  they  will  receive  further  punishment.  To  accommo- 
date them  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  and  its  furniture  will  be  ex- 
tended, not  only  to  the  city,  but  the  whole  of  Judah. 

16.  The  natural  effect  of  the  inflictions  above  described  will  be 
to  exalt  Yahweh  in  the  eyes  of  the  nations.  Ezekiel,  at  the  end  of 
the  parallel  passage,  makes  him  say,  "  I  will  make  myself  known  in 
the  eyes  of  many  nations,  and  they  shall  know  that  I  am  Yahweh." 
The  author  of  this  paragraph  puts  it  even  more  strongly.  He  says 
that,  after  these  plagues,  the  gentiles  will  not  only  recognise  Yah- 
weh, but  that  all  that  are  left  of  all  the  nations  that  came  against 
Jerusalem  shall  come  upfront  year  to  year  to  worship  the  King,  Yah- 
weh of  Hosts,  at  the  very  shrme  that  they  would  have  destroyed. 
They  will  not  be  required,  as  are  the  Jews  by  the  Law,  to  appear 
before  Yahweh  thrice  every  year,  but  they  will  be  expected  to  keep 
the  feast  of  tabernacles,  the  last  and  most  important  of  the  annual 
festivals,  and  the  Qnly  one  originally  celebrated  at  the  central 
sanctuary.*  A  universal  pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  City  every  year 
would,  of  course,  be  impossible,  yet  the  terms  used  are  such  that 
the  prophet  seems  to  have  believed  that  it  could  be  reaUsed. — 
17.  A  failure  to  observe  this  requirement  will  be  severely  punished. 
Moreover,  the  punishment  will  fit  the  offence.  The  feast  of  taber- 
nacles, or,  as  it  was  sometimes  called,  the  feast  of  ingathering,  was 
a  festival  of  thanksgiving  for  the  harv^est  just  completed.  Cf.  Ps. 
^^10/9  ff._  ^  refusal  to  celebrate  it  would  argue  an  ingratitude 
which  could  not  be  more  appropriately  punished  than  by  with- 
holding rain,  which  began  to  fall  soon  after  the  feast  of  tabernacles, 
and  thus  preventing  a  normal  harvest  in  the  following  year.  Hence 
it  is  decreed  that,  if  any  of  the  families  of  the  earth  come  not  up  to 
Jerusalem  to  worship  the  King,  Yahweh  of  Hosts,  on  them,  these 
ingrates,  or,  strictly,  their  soil,  shall  there  he  no  rain,  and,  conse- 
quently, no  crops. 

18.  The  case  of  Egypt  receives  special  treatment.  The  reason 
is  evident.  That  country  is,  and  always  has  been,  watered,  not 
from  the  clouds,  but  by  the  river  Nile.     Cf.  Dt.  ii^°.     This  being 

♦  C/.  Ju.  2 1"  I  K.  8^  1 2*,  etc.  In  Is.  66"  the  extravagant  prediction  is  made  that "  from  one 
month  to  another,  and  from  one  week  to  another,  all  flesh  shall  come  to  worship"  before  Yah- 
weh, but  in  this  case  "all  flesh"  includes  only  the  Jews  within  reach  of  the  temple.     Cj.  Jo.  3'. 


14"-'^^  355 

the  case,  a  threat  to  withhold  ram  would  have  been  ridiculous. 
The  prophet  says,  therefore,  that,  if  the  family  of  Egypt  come  not  up 
and  present  themselves,  then  on  them  shall  he  the  plague  with  which 
Yahweh  shall  smite  all  the  nations,  namely,  the  plague  described  in 
V.  ^^.  In  the  Massoretic  text  the  nations  are  defined  as  those  that 
come  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles;  but,  although  this  clause 
is  properly  used  in  v.  ^^,  in  this  one,  if  translated  according  to  the 
punctuation,  it  makes  the  writer  say  that  the  Egyptians  will  be 
punished  in  the  same  way  as  the  other  nations;  which,  as  appears 
from  V.  '^,  is  precisely  what  he  did  not  intend  to  say.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  punctuation  be  so  changed  that  the  latter  half  of 
the  verse  will  read,  then  on  them  shall  not  he  the  plague,  etc.,  he  is 
prevented  from  saying  how  the  Egyptians  will  be  punished.  These 
considerations  show  that  Marti  is  correct  in  not  only  changing  the 
punctuation  and  omitting  the  third  negative,  but  in  pronoimcing 
the  relative  clause  with  which  the  verse  now  closes  a  gloss  borrowed 
from  V.  ^^. — 19.  The  correctness  of  the  above  reconstruction  of 
v.  ^^  is  showm  by  the  harmony  between  the  verse  as  emended  and 
the  statement  which  now  follows.  This,  says  the  prophet,  re- 
ferring to  w.  ^^  ^-  as  a  M'hole,  shall  he  the  special  punishment  of 
Egypt,  and  the  common  punishment  of  all  the  rest  of  the  nations 
that  come  not  up  to  keep  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  It  is  clear  that 
Egypt  would  not  here  have  received  special  mention  unless  in  the 
preceding  verses  there  had  been  described  two  distinct  methods 
of  treating  those  who  neglected  the  annual  pilgrimage. 

20.  The  prophet  in  thought  follows  the  pilgrims  to  Jerusalem. 
He  seems  to  have  pictured  them  to  himself  as  journeying  thither 
on  horses.  Now,  the  Hebrews  did  not  at  first  look  with  favour 
upon  the  horse.  The  prophets,  in  this,  as  in  many  other  matters, 
preserved  the  attitude  of  the  fathers.  They  regarded  the  animal 
as  a  symbol  of  foreign  pomp  and  power.  Cf.  Is.  2^  Dt.  17*^  Ez. 
38^  etc.  Therefore  in  portraying  the  peaceful  future  to  which 
they  taught  their  people  to  look  forward,  they  naturally  represented 
it  without  horses.  See  9*"  and  Mi.  5"/^  but  especially  Zc.  9^ 
where  the  future  king  is  represented  as  making  his  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem,  not  on  a  horse,  but  on  an  ass.  In  the  present  in- 
stance the  prophet  does  not  banish  the  horse  from  the  Holy  Land,— 


356  ZECHARIAH 

it  would  have  been  cruel  to  the  pilgrims  from  remote  regions, — but 
gives  the  animal  a  new  meaning.  In  the  good  time  coming  shall 
the  hells,  or  tinkling  ornaments,  of  the  horses,  and,  of  course,  the 
horses  themselves,  be  holy  to  Yahweh.  The  horse  is  holy  because 
he  brings,  not  a  warrior,  to  kill  and  waste,  but  a  y)ilgrim  to  worship 
at  the  temple  of  Yahweh.  The  writer  saw  that  the  participation 
of  the  gentiles  in  the  celebration  of  the  feast  of  tabernacles  would 
tax  the  resources  of  the  temple,  and  made  provision  for  it.  He  be- 
gins by  saying  that  the  pots  in  the  house  of  Yahweh  shall  be  as  the 
bowls  before  tJie  altar.  These  words  are  capable  of  more  than  one 
interpretation.  One  is  that  the  vessels  u.sed  for  inferior  purposes 
will  become  as  holy  as  the  bowls  from  which  the  blood  of  sacri- 
fices is  sprinkled.*  To  this,  however,  there  is  the  serious  objec- 
tion that  there  is  no  apparent  ground  for  supposing  one  of  these 
classes  of  vessels  to  have  been  regarded  as  hoHer  than  the  other. 
Wellhausen  and  others,  therefore,  prefer  to  think  that  it  is  their  size 
with  reference  to  which  the  vessels  are  compared;  but  if,  as  the 
name  given  to  them  warrants  one  in  inferring,  the  pots  are  the  ves- 
sels used  in  cooking  the  flesh  of  the  sacrifices  (v. "'  Ex.  i6^),  they 
must  already  have  been  larger  than  the  bowls  for  the  blood  of  the 
victims.  These  objections  can  be  avoided  by  supposing  the  writer 
to  have  meant  that  the  supply  of  bowls  in  the  temple  would  be  .so 
scanty  that  the  pots  would  have  to  be  used  for  the  same  purpose. 
The  increase  in  the  number  of  worshippers  will  create  in  the 
house  of  Yahweh  a  deficiency  in  cook-pots,  which  will  be  the 
greater  because  some  or  all  of  the  vessels  of  this  class  already 
provided  have  been  taken  to  meet  the  need  of  bowls.  This  de- 
ficiency will  be  supplied  from  year  to  year,  by  the  resident  Jews, 
for  ei'ery  pot  in  Jerusalem  and  Jiidah,  like  those  in  the  temple, 
shall  then  he  holy  because  at  length  the  land  and  the  people  have 
been  sanctified.f  The  supply  will  be  so  generous  that  all  that 
sacrifice  shall  come  and  take  of  them  and  cook  therein,  according  to 
custom,  the  flesh  allotted  them  for  the  sacrificial  meal. J  Most  of 
the  sacrificers  will  have  to  obtain  animals  for  sacrifice  at  Jerusalem, 
but  they  will  not  be  able  to  buy  them  within  the  sacred  precincts, 

♦  So  Marck,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Kiili.,  Klie.,  Brd.,  Hd.,  Pu.,  Or.,  Rub.,  Wri.,  et  al. 

t  Cj.  Is.  ii9  62'2  Ez.  20<»,  etc.  %  Cj.  1  S.  2'3  Dt.  la"  '•  2  Ch.  35",  etc. 


14  357 

as  they  seem  to  have  done  when  this  passage  was  written  and  as 
they  continued  to  do  until  the  time  of  Jesus  (Mt.  21*" '),  for  there 
shall  no  longer  be  a  trader"^  in  the  house  of  Yahweh  of  Hosts  in  that 
day.     C/.  Jo.  4/3''. 

16.  inijn  So]  The  sg.  prtc.  with  Sd  and  the  art.  has  the  force  of  a  pi. 
Hence  ^^y^  in  the  next  clause.  Cf.  Ges.  ^^ '"  e')  ^-  ^-  i"  c^)  ^-  2.  Kenn. 
72  has  iVj,'\ — nju-a  nju-]  The  later  idiom  for  njB*  tmv.  Cf.  Ges.  ^  i"  <"'> 
J^-  1. — ninnrnS]  On  the  form,  see  Ges.  ^  ".  e.  R.  u, — 17,  -,;;;><]  Kenn  154, 
perhaps  correctly,  irN  Vj.  See  Dn>'?y. — .ind]  Rd.,  with  05  &,S3  pnd. — 
n'^i]  On  the  1,  see  iSjJi,  v.  '*;  on  the  position  of  the  negative,  before  the 
emphatic  word,  Ges.  U52. 2.  R.  3_ — Yox  v.  ^  most  mss.  of  (S  have  Kal  ovrot 
iKeivoLS  irfoffTedriffovTaL  =  D'f  JJ  vni  DniS>J  nSxi  (Koh.);  but^^  follows  IH. 
So  also  Aq.  S  9. — hnj  nSi]  Corrupt.  Rd.  either  x^n  n"^!,  or  nxai  without 
the  negative.  C/.  Ex.  28"Lv.  ig'^,  etc.;  Gss.  ^'^^-s. — an^':';?  n'^i]  Rd.,  with 
Kenn.  624,  (^  §,  on^Syi,  the  nS  having  been  imported  from  v.  i^.  So  Houb., 
Ew.,  Burger,  Sta.,  We.,  Kui.,  Now.,  Marti,  GASm.,  Kit.,  van  H.,  et  al. 
The  punctuation  must  also  be  changed  so  that  this  word  will  become  a 
part  of  V.  •>. — OMjn  tn]  Rd.,  with  83  mss.,  (&  "B,  a'un  Vd  pn.  The  oriental 
reading  is  a>n;'n  Sd  dk,  as  in  v.  '2,  to  which  the  threat  here  made  has  refer- 
ence. So  also  II  mss. — On  the  rel.  clause  with  which  the  verse  closes,  see 
the  comments. — 19.  In  11  Kenn.  mss.  this  verse  is  wanting;  but  the  Vrss. 
have  it,  and,  when  properly  interpreted,  it  has  a  place  in  the  discourse. — 
20.  Sy]  Rd.,  with  5  Kenn.  mss.  and  Talm.^J,  S:i;  which  is  also  rec]uired  by 
V.  21. — niSsc]  This  is  the  reading  preferred  by  Jerome's  Jewish  teachers, 
but  the  text  of  his  day  had  niVxD  here  as  well  as  in  i*  and  10".  Hence 
the  ^vd6v  of  Aq.  9.  Van  H.  suggests  for  this  and  the  following  word 
11D1  r\'h-iTi,  which  he  renders  poeles  et  marmite. — n^m]  The  sg.  for  the  pi, 
Cf.  Ges.  ^'<^-  '  ("'. — 21.  Kit.  rejects  the  last  two  words  Ninn  zv2,  and 
Marti,  without  sufficient  warrant,  questions  the  genuineness  of  the  whole 
clause  from  nSi  onward. 

*  Literally,  Canaanite,  but  such  cannot  be  the  meaning  in  this  connection,  since  the  nations  as 
such  will  be  free  to  visit  the  temple. 


INDEXES. 


I.     SPECIAL   SUBJECTS. 


Adversary,  the,  only  in  Zechariah, 
103;  his  character,  150/. 

Alexander  in  Palestine,  253,  269. 

Altar  at  Jerusalem,  restoration,  9/. 

Angel;  see  Messenger  of  Yahweh. 

Angels  in  Zechariah,  103. 

Apocalyptic,  characteristics,  239/. 

Artaxerxes  III  (Ochus),  in  Palestine, 
253  n.;  at  Sidon,  264/. 

Assyria,  name,  246,  293  /. 

Behistun  Inscription,  17/.,  22. 

Cambyses,  conquest  of  Egypt,  14/.; 
treatment  of  Egyptians,  15  /.;  re- 
lations with  Jews,  16;  manner  of 
death,  17. 

Chariots  among  the  Hebrews,   177. 

Convulsions  of  nature,  61. 

Cypress,  296. 

Cyrus,  conquests,  3,  13;  deliverer  of 
Jews,  4/.,  6/.;  treatment  of  Baby- 
lon, 5;  date  of  death,  13. 

"Darius,  son  of  Ahasuerus,"  41. 

Darius  I  (Hystaspgs),  overthrow  of 
Gomates,  7  /. ;  suppression  of 
satraps,  18,  21;  date  of  accession, 
19/.;  action  on  the  temple,  20  ff.; 
expedition  to  Egypt,  23;  pacifi- 
cation of  Judea,  23  /.;  confusion 
with  others,  41  /. 

"Darius  the  Mede,"  41. 

"Darius  the  Persian,"  41. 


Elephantine,  temple,  12  ti. 
En-rogel,  location,  345. 
Ephah,  size,  172. 

Ethics,  of  Zc.  1-8,  105;  of  9-14, 
241/. 

False  prophets,  247. 
Fliigge  on  Zc.  9-14,  245. 

GiHON,  location,  343;  corruption  of 

name,  345. 
Gilead,  extent,  294. 
Gomates,    the    Magian,  as    Bardes, 

17;  overthrow,  18;  length  of  reign, 

19  n. 
Grotius  on  Zc.  9-14,  250. 
Griitzmacher  on  Zc.  9-14,  248. 

Hadrak,  location,  262. 

Haggai  the  prophet,  name,  25,  42; 
vocation,  26;  age,  27. 

Haggai's  book,  genuineness,  27; 
unity,  28_^.;  text,  31  _^.;  criticism, 
36/.;  style,  37/. 

High  -  priesthood,  origin,  44;  first 
mention,  44;  growth  of  impor- 
tance, 188. 

Hinnom,  Valley  of,  location,  345  /. 

Horses  among  the  Hebrews,  274, 
355/ 

Idolatry  after  the  Exile,  247. 
Interpreter,  the,  in  Zechariah's  visi- 
ons, 103. 


559 


360 


INDEX 


Introduction,    historiral,    to   Haggai 

and  Zechariah,  3  ff. 
"Israel"  in  Zc.  1-8,  135,  214. 

Jachin  and  Boaz,  178. 

Jealousy  of  Yahweh,  125/. 

Jerusalem,  date  of  destruction,  196. 

Jews  in  Egypt,  292  /. 

Jordan,  valley  of  the,  297  /. 

"Joseph"  as  a  collective,  290. 

Joseph,  son  of  Tobias,  303/.,  310/. 

Joshua,  the  high  priest,  name,  44; 
genealogy,  44;  a  symbolic  figure, 
152/.;  his  great  office,  i56jf. 

KuENEN  on  Zc.  9-14,  251. 

Marriages  with  foreigners,  247. 

Measuring  lines,  136/. 

Mede  on  Zc.  9-14,  244. 

Messenger,  the,  of  Yahweh,  a  proph- 
et, 55;  manifestation  of  Yahweh, 
61;  champion  of  Israel,  124;  148 
/.;  relation  to  Michael,  150  w. 

Messiah,  son  of  David,  identified 
with  Zerubbabel,  77/.,  158,  185/.; 
in  Zc.  9-14,  241  /.,  249;  absence 
from  Zc.  7/.,  250,  273. 

Messiah,  son  of  Joseph,  origin  of 
conception,  273;  found  in  Zc.  12', 

331- 
Michael,  the  archangel,  152. 
Months,  names,  116. 
Myrtle,  118. 

Neumann's  style,  174. 
Newcome  on  Zc.  9-14,  244. 

Prophets,  the  former,  in  Zc.  1-8, 

lOl/.,    105,    III. 

Ptolemy  I  (Soter),  255. 
Ptolemy  II  (Philadelphus),  255. 
Ptolemy  III  (Euergetes),  255,  303^. 
Ptolemy  IV  (Philopator),  256,  315. 


Rainfall  in  Palestine,  49/ 
Restoration,    the,    the    Chronicler's 
account,  b  ff.\  a.  probable  theory, 
8/.;  bearing  of  Hg.  i'^,  54. 
Robinson  on  Zc.  9-14,  242  ff. 

Samaritans,  attitude  toward  Jews, 
12  n. 

Satan;  see  Adversary. 

Sellin  on  "The  stone  with  seven 
eyes,"  158. 

Sheshbazzar,  governor  of  Judea,  6; 
confusion  with  Zerubbabel,  8;  re- 
storer of  the  great  altar,  22. 

"Shoot"  as  a  Messianic  term,  186. 

Sion,  proper  application,  126;  im- 
proper, 177  «. 

Stade  on  Zc.  9-14,  250,  252. 

Stonard's  style,  160. 

Storks  in  Palestine,  174. 

Suffi.xes,  singular,  with  collective 
meaning,  271  /. 

Temple,  the  second,  date  of  foun- 
dation, 10  ff.,  20,  71;  interruption 
of  the  work,  20  ff.;  instrumental- 
ity of  Haggai,  20,  22  /.;  of  Zech- 
ariah, 145;  date  of  completion,  23. 

Teraphim,  nature,  287;  an  actual 
plural,  298. 

Tyre,  sieges  of,  265. 

Visions  of  Zechariah,  nature,  116/.; 
interpretation,  122/.,  i8r/. 

Wine-presses  in  Palestine,  70. 
Winter  in  Judea,  346  n. 

Zechariah  the  prophet,  name,  107 

/.;  a  priest,  81;  genealogy,  81  /.; 

age,  82/.;  influence,  145. 
Zechariah's  book,  structure,  84;  text, 

84  /.;    style,    98  /.;    dates,    98; 

visions,  98/.,  102/.,   116/.,   122, 


INDEX 


361 


233;  favourite  forms  of  expres- 
sion, 100/.,  236;  indebtedness  to 
predecessors,  loi/.;  teaching,  102 
/.;  angels,  103;  sobriety,  103  /., 
127/.,  135. 
Zechariah  9-14,  structure,  2 18  j^. ; 
text,  220  ff.;  authorship,  232  ff.; 
comparison  with  1-8,  233  ff.;  in- 
debtedness to  earlier  prophets, 
237/.;  apocalyptic  element,  239/.; 


Robinson's  defence,  242  ff.;  ear- 
lier criticism,  244  /.;  the  pre- 
exilian  theory,  245^.;  postexilian 
theories,  2^0  ff.;  a  constructive 
argument,  2^1  ff. 
Zerubbabel,  name,  43,  187  «.;  gene- 
alogy, 43;  confusion  with  Shesh- 
bazzar,  78;  identification  with  the 
Messiah,  77  /.,  156,  185  /.;  dis- 
appearance, 24. 


II.     PASSAGES    INCIDENTALLY   DISCUSSED. 


Genesis  9=,  204;    15'",  204;   29^,  82; 

42",  204. 
Exodus  142°,  139. 

1  Samuel  ly^^,  344;  i9'5*-,  287  n. 

2  Samuel  2i-'>  =  i  Chronicles  20*, 
166. 

1  Kings  8^5 f.^  166;  92",  269  n. 

2  Kings  9",  261. 

Isaiah  11",  208;  42',  55;  44-<-2^  4/.; 

45'",  4;  52"-S3",  33^;  55",  "3; 
63''S  61;  6623,  354. 

Jeremiah  23'^,  261;  29",  63  /. ;  31', 
330  71.;  47',  246;  49^6,  178;  s°'\ 
316. 

Ezekiel  i^'-,  98,  108;  8=,  118;  29"ff-, 
266;  31',  296;  32'",  284;  38%  142. 

Amos  !'»■,  234;  4'=-",  70;  512,  73. 

Habbakuk  2^'='-,  321  «.;  2-",  144. 

Haggai  i^,  38;  i'",  38;  i",  38;  26', 

38/.;    2'^  38;  2IS,  38;  220-23,   30. 

Zechariah  i^'-,  99;   I'^t-is^   loo;   i", 

99;   212/8,  gg;  214/10-17/13,    lOO;   4^'", 

97;  6'2''-i3,  100;  8-^-,  99. 


Alalachi  2',  55. 

Psalms  104^,  178;  109^,  149  n.;  I47'S 

113- 
Daniel   i"-,   125;   78-   2<,  307;   ii^o, 

257,  307- 
Ezra  i'-",  6;  21^-,  7/.;  31-^,  9/.;  3^,  47; 

38-'3, 10/.,  7i;4''-"',  13;  5'-6'^  21/.; 

6'2,  22;  7',  82. 
Nehemiah  2^0,   12;    -j^^-,  8;   1210-22, 

41;  I3'^  41- 

1  Chronicles  31',  43;  3'^  8  n.,  18,  42; 
21',  149  71. 

2  Chronicles  iio,  63;  3412,  im.;  36=2, 
6. 

I  Esdras  21-7,  6  n.;  5'^-,  8. 
Matthew  i'2,  43;  21=,  274  «.,  276; 

2335,   83;   263  =  Mark   142',   318; 

27'ff-,  314;  2710,  311,  313. 
Mark  12,  311. 

Luke  178,  156  «.;  32',  43;  ii^',  84. 
John  i2'2,  274  71.;  1215,  274  w.,  276. 
Acts  io36,  65. 
Revelation  ii3  8-,  165. 


III.     HEBREW  WORDS  AND  FORMS  REQUIRING  SPECIAL 
ATTENTION. 

N  as  a  vowel  letter,  350.  Sn,  in  a  pregnant   construction, 

h>w,  foolish,  315.  47;    confusion   with    t.3,    50,   64, 

-ins,  after  (post),  146.  72. 

vriN  r^s,  07ie  a7iother,  204/.  "^F??, '^?,  ^^  ^''"  ^^''^"'>  335- 


362 


INDEX 


"iDN,  for  BvVj,   in   interpolations,   52, 

65,   114. 
T'DN,  as  a  prisoner,  43. 

3.  partitive,  55;  essentia,  76;  of  in- 
timate address,  129;    of  hostility, 

353- 
113  and  Sn,  50,  64,  72. 
'?Nn''3,  for  SN-n''3,  197. 
'B'K'3,  an  interpolation,  57. 

n,  the  article,  with  a  predicate,  203. 
n,  the    interrogative:     its    omission, 
209. 

n3n,  >3T,  13^;    their    accentuation, 

n'^un,  the  exiles,  183/. 
Nin  connective,  190. 
c'^3in,  from  ri3,  271. 
D^ni3rin,  conflate  form,  300. 
non,  anticipatory  subj.,  129. 
n:n,  before  preps.,  52. 
jn  demonstrative,  72  /. 
■^T*  highlands,  47  m. 
JJ'P'!!  iv?,  of  Judea,  207. 
1  in  a  series,  353. 
S.33'}t;  etymology,  43. 

>jn;  derivation,  42. 

•iDn,  kindness;  of  men,  329/. 

■\x''  as  an  appellative,  302. 

-\p\  for  ixis,  313/. 

SN^r^  in  Zechariah,  132,  135. 

"<■>?'???  =  "^W^,  56. 
1^33,  glory  ;oi  a  theophany,  141. 
rsnri  |ni),  for  Snjn  jnsn,  in  Chron- 
icles and  Ezra,  44  n. 


Npr,  rule,  power,  77  «. 
1?,  palm  and  50/e,  50. 

|nS  and  -i>:i  extremes,  75/. 
Ul?*^  after  a  negative,  328. 

nc;  its  position,  53. 

oi^*? n?  for  O''?';'^^,  160. 

D-lOp,    74. 

^^i;pj  ^}P.  D^":--!?,  7°/-,  73/,  75/- 

n^jxc,  EV.  wzVre,  152 

Nw'D,  burden  and  oracle,  261. 

DNj,  299. 

CNj,    see  ncN. 

DHDj;   derivation,  345. 

DHD,  5i!o/),  345. 

"icy,  153- 

•ijj;  at  the  beginning  of  a  conversa- 
tion, 129/. 
ijj;  and  VJJ*  276. 

nnis,  wine-pi^ess,  74/. 

ips  with  and  without  "';■;.,  299. 

nrip,  engrave,  157. 

niN3x;  frequency  with  nin-,  130. 

ncx,  5/joo/,  160. 

Ills:  /(wrse  or  pebble  P  46/. 

"f";.  ^«^.  340. 

"inr,  chestnut,  119,  129. 

^BC',  tear  onc'5  self,  322. 
OiSr,  prosperity,  63/. 

Ssin'^r  for  '^N'T^xr,  56. 

Nin  for  x^n,  271. 


A 

CRITICAL   AND    EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

ON  THE 

BOOK  OF  MALACHI 


BY 


JOHN  MERLIN  POWIS  SMITH,  Ph.D. 

ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR    OF    SEMITIC    LANGUAGES   AND   LITERATURES 
IN   THE   UNIVERSITY  OF   CHICAGO 


INTRODUCTION  TO  MALACHL 

§  I.    THE  BOOK  OF  MALACHI. 

I.     Its  Contents. 

The  theme  of  the  prophecy  is  stated  clearly  in  the  opening 
section  of  the  book  (i'-"^),  viz.  that  Yahweh  still  loves  Israel, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  appearances  seem  to  tell  against 
a  belief  in  such  love.  The  second  and  main  section  (1^-3^^) 
points  out  in  detail  some  of  the  obstacles  that  stand  in  the  way 
of  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  Yahweh's  love  toward  his  people. 
These  obstacles  are  found  in  the  failure  of  the  people  in  general 
and  the  priests  in  particular  to  manifest  that  respect  and  rever- 
ence toward  Yahweh  that  are  due  from  a  people  to  its  God 
(1^-2^) ;  in  the  fact  that  native  Jewish  wives  have  been  divorced 
in  order  that  the  way  might  be  cleared  for  new  marriages  with 
foreign  women — a  proceeding  exhibiting  both  inhumanity  and 
apostacy  {2^^-'^^);  in  the  general  materialism  and  faithlessness 
of  the  times,  which  call  in  question  the  value  of  faith  and  right- 
eousness and  will  make  necessary  the  coming  of  a  day  of  judg- 
ment {2^"^-^^) ;  and  in  the  failure  to  render  to  Yahweh  generously 
and  willingly  the  tithes  and  offerings  that  are  his  due  (3^"^-). 
The  last  section  {^^^-d^)  takes  up  again  the  note  with  which  the 
prophecy  opens,  and  it  assures  the  pious  that  their  labours  have 
not  been  in  vain;  for  in  the  day  of  Yahweh  which  is  near  at 
hand  Israel's  saints  will  experience  the  protection  of  Yahweh's 
fatherly  love,  whereas  the  wicked  will  perish.  The  book  is  evi- 
dently well  planned,  being  knit  together  into  a  well-developed 
and  harmonious  whole. 

2.    Its  Unity. 

The  essential  unity  of  the  Book  of  Malachi  has  never  been 
called  in  question.    Editorial  additions  are  few  and  slight.    The 

3 


4  MALACHI 

only  passages  that  have  been  attacked  as  not  belonging  to  the 
original  prophecy  are  2'-  "■  ^-  and  4"-^  In  the  case  of  2'-  "■  '^^ 
the  attack  can  hardly  be  deemed  successful  (v.  com.  in  loc). 
But  the  editorial  origin  of  4''"^  must  be  granted  {v.  com.  in  loc). 
The  recent  attempt  of  Riessler  to  demonstrate  the  presence  of 
three  strata  in  Malachi,  viz.  (i)  fundamental  prophecies,  (2) 
parallels  to  the  foregoing,  and  (3)  notes,  all  three  of  which  go 
back  in  the  last  analysis,  nearly  in  tolo,  to  the  original  writer 
himself,  can  be  regarded  only  as  a  curiosum.  The  critical  pro- 
cedure upon  which  this  assignment  rests  is  subjective  and  arbi- 
trary in  the  highest  degree. 

It  is  probable  that  Malachi  once  circulated  as  one  of  a  small 
collection  of  prophecies  which  also  included  Zechariah,  chs.  g-i  i 
and  12-14,  and  perhaps  chs.  1-8.  The  three  superscriptions,  Zc. 
9^  12*  Mai.  i\  are  apparently  either  from  the  same  hand,  or  Zc. 
12^  and  Mai,  i^  were  modelled  after  Zc.  9^  In  either  case,  they 
testify  to  the  close  relationship  of  this  group  of  prophecies  at 
some  point  in  the  history  of  their  transmission  prior  to  their  in- 
clusion within  the  Book  of  the  Twelve,  where  Malachi  now  stands 
as  an  independent  book. 

3.     Us  Style. 

The  style  of  Malachi  is  clear  and  simple.  It  is  at  the  same  time 
direct  and  forceful.  It  makes  but  little  demand  upon  the  im- 
agination of  the  reader.  The  element  of  beauty  is  almost  wholly 
lacking,  there  being  but  slight  attempt  at  ornamentation  of  any 
kind.  The  figurative  element  is  very  limited;  but  such  figures 
as  are  employed  are  fresh  and  suggestive.  A  marked  character- 
istic is  the  frequent  use  of  the  catechetical  method,  in  accordance 
with  which  general  statements  are  met  by  questions  calling  for 
nearer  definition  or  for  citations  of  fact.  This  gives  a  certain 
appearance  of  vivacity  to  the  discourse  which  tends  to  maintain 
interest.  This  method  was  carried  to  extremes  in  the  later  rab- 
binical dialectics. 

In  distinction  from  most  of  the  prophetic  books,  Malachi 
must  be  classified  as  prose.     Neither  in  spirit,  thought,  nor 


THE   TIMES   OF   MALACHI  5 

form,  has  it  the  characteristics  of  poetry.  Certainly,  there  is 
an  occasional  flash  of  poetic  insight  and  imagination,  or  a  few 
lines  which  move  to  a  poetic  rhythm.  But  only  by  the  loosest 
use  of  terms  could  we  call  the  prophecy  as  a  whole  poetry.  All 
attempts  to  treat  it  as  poetry  have  involved  much  pruning  of 
the  text  in  order  to  bring  the  lines  within  the  necessary  limits 
of  a  poetic  measure.*  If  Malachi  is  to  be  regarded  as  poetical, 
either  in  form  or  content,  distinctions  between  poetry  and  prose 
must  be  abandoned. 

§  2.    THE  TIMES. 

The  Book  of  Malachi  furnishes  no  statement  regarding  the 
time  of  its  origin.  Nor  does  external  testimony  aid  much  in  de- 
termining its  date.  The  citation  from  4*^  which  occurs  in  BS. 
48^°  does,  indeed,  put  practically  out  of  the  question  the  Macca- 
baean  date  proposed  by  some.f  The  mere  fact  of  the  presence 
of  Malachi  in  the  prophetic  canon  would  seem  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  a  Maccabaean  date;  for  BS.  49^°  shows  that  the 
Book  of  the  Twelve  was  already  organised  in  the  days  of  Ben 
Sirach.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  as  late  as  the  Maccabaean 
period  a  new  book  could  have  been  incorporated  among  the 
Twelve,  involving  as  it  would  either  the  omission  of  a  book  pre- 
viously admitted,  or  the  consolidation  into  one  book  of  some 
two  of  the  books  already  in  the  Book  of  the  Twelve. J 

For  further  information  regarding  the  time  in  which  Malachi 
was  written,  we  must  depend  upon  the  more  or  less  indirect 
testimony  of  the  contents  of  the  book  itself.  The  reference  to 
Edom  in  i^-^  raises  our  hopes.  Edom  has  evidently  received 
quite  recently  some  telling  blow  which  has  left  her  prostrate. 
Israel's  hatred  of  Edom  is  thereby  gratified.  This  attitude  to- 
ward Edom  is  one  which  characterised  Israel  continuously  from 

*  Witness  the  arrangements  of  Marti,  Siev.,  Now.^,  and  Riessler. 

t  Viz.  Wkl.  and  Spoer.  The  reply  made  by  Spoer  to  the  objection  here  urged  is  that  Malachi 
may  have  quoted  from  BS..  But  this  is  unconvincing,  because  the  whole  context  in  BS.  is 
made  up  of  allusions  to  and  quotations  from  the  OT.,  the  very  next  line  to  the  one  in  ques- 
tion being  a  citation  of  Is.  49^;    whereas  Mai.  46  bears  the  stamp  of  originality. 

t  Cf.  F.  Brown,  in  Essays  in  Modern  Theology  and  Related  Subjects — A  Testimonial  to  Chas. 
A.  Briggs  (1911),  pp.  68,  77;  G.  B.  Gray,  Isaiah  (ICC,  1912),  xliii^.. 


6  MALACHI 

the  time  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  when  Edom  had  taken  advan- 
tage of  Judah's  helplessness  to  seize  a  part  of  Judah  for  herself 
(Ez.  35^"-'^  36^'^;  cf.  Is.  63  and  Ob.).  Any  great  disaster  to 
Edom  after  this  time  would  meet  the  requirements  of  this 
oracle.*  Unfortunately,  the  history  of  Edom  from  the  time  of 
the  exile  to  the  outbreak  of  the  Maccabaean  revolt  is  almost 
wholly  unknown.  We  do  know  that  Southern  Judah  was  called 
Idumaea  as  early  as  312  B.c.t  and  that  about  that  time  the 
Nabataeans  had  already  pressed  in  from  the  South  and  dis- 
lodged the  Edomites  from  their  ancient  fastnesses.  But  the 
exact  period  at  which  the  expulsion  of  the  Edomites  by  the 
Nabataeans  took  place  is  as  yet  unknown.^  It  is  not  at 
all  improbable  that  this  overrunning  of  Edom  by  the  Naba- 
taeans was  the  disaster  to  which  our  prophet  refers.  If  so, 
the  origin  of  Malachi  must  fall  somewhere  between  586  B.C. 
and  312  B.C.. 

A  nearer  approximation  to  the  period  of  Malachi  has  been 
sought  by  some  through  the  use  of  the  word  "governor"  (nnS) 
in  i^.  The  only  "governors"  of  Judah  who  could  be  identified 
were  Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah.  Bu.t  upon  the  basis  of  the  Ele- 
phantine papyri,  we  can  now  add  Bagoas.  These  three,  however, 
represent  the  entire  period  from  536  B.C.  to  407  B.C..  Moreover, 
it  is  clear  from  Ne.  5*'*  that  Zerubbabel  was  not  the  only  "gov- 
ernor" prior  to  Nehemiah.  Furthermore,  the  use  of  the  word 
"governor"  was  so  general  {cf.  Je.  ^i"^-  ^^  Ez.  23^  Est.  3*^)  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  it  ceased  even  with  the  pass- 
ing of  the  Persian  Empire.  The  Persians  took  over  the  title 
from  the  Babylonians  and  doubtless  passed  it  on  to  the  Seleucid 
dynasty.  In  later  times,  indeed,  it  was  actually  applied  to  the 
chief  priests  in  Judaea.  §  Hence,  this  term  conveys  no  specific 
information  regarding  the  date  of  the  Book  of  Malachi. 

One  definite  date  is  furnished  us  by  the  contents  of  the  proph- 
ecy.    It  is  quite  evident  that  the  temple  was  already  rebuilt 

*  Cf.  the  kindly  feeling  toward  Edom  attested  by  Dt.  23'  '•. 

t  Diodorus,  XIX,  94-100,  where  the  contemporary  record  of  Hicronymus  of  Kardia  is  cited 
as  authority  for  this  statement. 

\  Ez.  25'  ■ '"  may  reflect  the  invading  movements  of  the  Nabataeans. 
§  V.  Bikkurim,  cited  by  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  4th  ed.,  vol.  II.,  p.  32J. 


THE  TIMES   OF   MALACHI  7 

(jio  ^i.  io)_  Not  only  so,  but  the  enthusiasm  engendered  by 
Haggai  and  Zechariah,  which  had  carried  the  temple  to  comple- 
tion, had  passed  away.  The  community  had  had  sufficient  time 
since  that  event  to  realise  that  the  high  hopes  entertained  by 
those  prophets  had  not  materialised.  The  conditions  of  life 
after  the  building  of  the  temple  were  as  hard  and  barren  as  they 
had  been  before  and  there  was  no  visible  sign  of  relief.  This 
fixes  the  terminus  a  quo  at  about  510  B.C.. 

The  terminus  ad  quern  seems  to  be  set  by  the  reforms  of  Ne- 
hemiah,  for  the  abuses  attacked  by  Malachi  are  exactly  those 
against  which  the  reform  was  directed.  The  temple-services 
and  offerings  had  fallen  into  disrepute  (i^-  ").  The  priests  them- 
selves had  grown  careless,  contemptuous  and  skeptical  in  the 
discharge  of  their  official  dudes  (i«-»-  ''■ "  2'- »).  Tithes  and  offer- 
ings had  been  allowed  to  lapse,  through  the  feeling  that  godli- 
ness was  not  profitable  for  all  things  and  that  the  service  of  Yah- 
weh  was  a  one-sided  contract,  in  accordance  with  which  Israel 
gave  everything  and  received  nothing  (2I'  3^-10"  ;  cf.  Ne.  lo'^-ss 
j^io-13)  In  addition  to  these  evils,  the  Jews  had  especially  sig- 
nalised their  descent  from  spiritual  heights  by  having  divorced 
their  Jewish  wives  and  having  entered  into  new  marriages  with 
non- Jewish  women  belonging  to  the  influential,  but  mongrel 
families  of  the  vicinity  (2'°-'';  cf.  Ezr.,  chs.  9-10;  Ne.  lo^s-^o 
1323-31).  Even  the  few  words  devoted  by  Malachi  to  the  social 
wrongs  of  the  rimes  (3^)  find  their  justificarion  in  the  condirions 
recorded  in  Nehemiah's  memoirs  (Ne.  51-").  The  Book  of  Mal- 
achi fits  the  situation  amid  which  Nehemiah  worked  as  snugly 
as  a  bone  fits  its  socket. 

Yet  the  precise  point  at  which  the  writer  of  Malachi  appeared 
still  eludes  us.  The  condirions  found  by  Nehemiah  did  not,  of 
course,  develop  suddenly,  but  were  the  outcome  of  a  long  social 
process.  There  may,  indeed,  have  been  no  appreciable  change 
in  the  situarion  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  or  more  before  the 
arrival  of  Nehemiah.  Malachi  would  be  intelligible  as  coming 
from  any  porrion  of  such  a  period.  Some  would  place  it  before 
the  coming  of  Ezra;*  others,  contemporary  with  Ezra  and  Ne- 

•  So  e.  g.  We.(?),  GASm.(?),  Now.,  Cor.,  Bu.»«»«''-,  Sta.Th=oi.,  Marti,  van  H.,  Du.P'"-. 


8  MALACHI 

hemiah;*  still  others,  during  Nehemiah's  absence  at  the  Persian 
court; t  while  a  few  would  place  it  during  or  after  Nehemiah's 
second  visit  to  Jerusalem. J  It  is  difficult  to  regard  Malachi  as 
coming  from  any  time  when  Nehemiah  was  actually  in  Jerusa- 
lem; because  i^  implies  the  presence  of  a  governor  who  was  ac- 
customed to  receive  gifts  from  the  citizens,  while  Nehemiah 
distinctly  says  that  he  did  not  avail  himself  of  this  privilege 
(Ne.  5^^-  ^*).  On  the  whole,  it  is  best  to  interpret  the  author  of 
Malachi  as  one  who  prepared  the  way  for  the  reforms  of  Nehe- 
miah. He  betrays  no  knowledge  of  any  contemporary  or  recent 
reform  movement;  whereas  if  he  had  participated  in  the  reform, 
he  would  almost  certainly  have  reinforced  his  words  by  refer- 
ring to  the  solemn  covenant  to  which  his  hearers  had  recently 
subscribed,  w'hile  they  were  now  violating  it  daily  at  every  point. 
The  choice  of  the  period  immediately  preceding  the  reform  is 
supported  by  the  hints  given  in  the  prophecy  as  to  the  code  of 
laws  in  force  at  the  time  it  was  written.  No  distinction  is  made, 
for  example,  between  the  priests  and  the  Levites;  in  2*-^,  the 
terms  "priest"  and  "Levi"  are  apparently  coterminous;  and 
in  3',  the  "sons  of  Levi"  as  a  class  are  represented  as  qualified 
to  offer  sacrifice,  whereas  in  the  legislation  introduced  in  connec- 
tion with  the  reform  the  right  of  sacrifice  was  confined  to  the 
" sons  of  Aaron."  The  Priestly  Code  provides  that  the  sacrificial 
animal  may  be  either  male  or  female,  but  Mai.  i"  mentions 
only  the  male.  The  regulations  regarding  the  tithes  (3*")  are 
nearer  to  the  law  of  the  Priestly  Code,  indeed,  than  to  that  of 
Deuteronomy,  in  that  they  contemplate  the  payment  of  all  the 
tithes  at  Jerusalem,  whereas  Deuteronomy  requires  a  triennial 
tithe  to  be  paid  over  to  the  Levites  and  the  poor  in  their  city 
gates,  where  they  are  to  eat  it.  This  departure  from  Deuteron- 
omy in  Malachi  is  explicable  on  two  grounds.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  quite  probable  that  in  the  time  of  IMalachi  all  the  Levites 
were  living  in  Jerusalem  itself  or  in  its  immediate  vicinity;  in 
the  second  place,  the  Priestly  Code  was  not  created  wholly  ex 
nihilo.     There  were  preparatory  stages  of  development;    for 

•  So  e.  g.  Hd.,  Pres.,  Schegg. 

tSoe.  g.  Koh.;   Stci.;   Ko.Ki"' ;  Or.;  Vo\ck,  in  PRE.^;  Dr>«-,3S7. 

}  So  e.  £.  Rosemn.,  Ew.,'.Ke.,  Hengslenberg,  Reinke,  Kue.. 


THE   TIMES   OF   MALACHI  9 

example,  the  Holiness  Code  and  Ez.,  chs.  40-48.  Consequently, 
with  customs  and  rites  continually  undergoing  modification,  it 
is  more  than  probable  that  the  Priestly  Code,  in  the  matter  of 
tithes  as  in  many  other  respects,  did  but  recognise  oflScially 
what  custom  had  already  approved.  Malachi  thus  represents  a 
stage  in  the  history  of  tithing  midway  between  that  of  Deuteron- 
omy on  the  one  hand  and  the  Priestly  Code  on  the  other.  The 
tithing  called  for  by  Malachi  seems  less  elaborate  and  complicated 
than  that  arranged  for  in  Ne.  lo^^-  ^*.  Likewise,  Malachi  joins 
the  heave-offering  (Mi2'"iri)  with  the  tithe  as  in  Deuteronomy, 
while  the  Priestly  Code  separates  the  two,  assigning  the  former 
to  the  priests,  as  distinguished  from  the  Levites  in  general. 
Even  4'',  the  later  addition,  uses  Deuteronomic  terminology,  viz. 
in  locating  the  law-giving  at  Horeb,  rather  than  Sinai,  and  in 
employing  the  phrase  "statutes  and  judgments."  It  seems  safe 
and  just,  therefore,  to  give  to  Malachi  some  credit  for  aid  in  pre- 
paring the  way  for  the  reform.  The  book  voices  the  thought  of 
one  who  remained  true  to  the  old  ideals  and  customs,  at  a  time 
when  those  around  him  were  rapidly  losing  faith  and  becoming 
desperate.  The  attempt  of  Spoer  to  interpret  the  utterances  of 
Malachi  as  a  protest  against  the  reform,  at  least  in  so  far  as  it 
deals  with  priests  and  Levites  and  with  divorce,  can  hardly  be 
considered  as  other  than  fantastic. 


§  3.    THE  PROPHET. 

The  Book  of  Malachi  is  an  anonymous  writing.  The  name 
"Malachi"  is  apparently  one  attached  to  the  book  by  an  editor. 
It  owes  its  origin  to  3^  As  the  name  stands,  it  can  only  mean 
"  my  messenger."  This  is  a  very  unlikely  appellation  for  a 
parent  to  bestow  upon  a  child.  It  might,  however,  be  an  abbre- 
viated form  of  Malachiah  (n^3«^I2;  cf.  "-^S,  of  2  K.  iS'^  with 
"■"ZS,  of  2  Ch.  29I);  in  which  case,  the  translation  best  sup- 
ported by  the  analogy  of  similar  formations  would  be  Yahweh 
is  a  messenger."  This  is  clearly  an  improbable  meaning.  Thus 
the  meaning  "  the  messenger  of  Yahweh"  is  necessitated  for  the 
supposititious  longer  form.    This,  too,  is  hardly  a  probable  name 


TO  MALACm 

for  a  child,  but  suggests  an  allusion  to  3*  {cf.  2').  For  further 
considerations  opposed  to  the  treatment  of  "  Malachi"  as  a  ver- 
itable name,  v.  pp.  18  /.. 

The  book  being  anonymous,  nothing  can  be  known  of  the 
author  beyond  what  the  book  itself  may  reveal  as  to  his  char- 
acter and  temperament.  Jerome  testifies  that  the  Jews  of  his 
day  identified  "Malachi"  with  Ezra,*  as  does  the  Targum. 
The  book  has  been  assigned  by  tradition  to  various  other 
authors;  for  example,  Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah.  Pseudo- 
Epiphanius  declares  Malachi  to  have  been  a  man  of  Sopha  in 
Zebulun  and  to  have  been  characterised  by  an  angelic  form  and 
appearance.!  Not  content  with  this,  tradition  has  made  him 
a  Levite  and  a  member  of  the  "  Great  Synagogue"  and  has  de- 
clared him  to  have  died  while  still  young.  But  these  and  similar 
traditions  are  all  of  late  origin,  fanciful  and  contradictory  in 
character,  and  without  any  historical  value  as  witnesses  to  the 
life  of  our  prophet. 

His  prophecy  shows  him  to  have  been  a  patriotic  Jew,  loving 
his  country  and  his  people  passionately  and  hating  the  enemies 
of  Israel  fervently.  He  can  think  of  no  more  convincing  proof 
of  Yahweh's  love  for  Israel  than  the  fact  that  Edom  has  recently 
been  stricken  down  in  accordance  with  Yahweh's  will.  Jeru- 
salem is  the  city  and  Israel  the  people  that  Yahweh  loves  and 
intends  to  make  the  one  envied  by  all  the  beholding  nations.  He 
is  also  evidently  a  man  of  vigorous  personality  and  strong  con- 
victions. While  others  tremble  and  doubt,  he  stands  brave  and 
firm.  His  faith  is  equal  to  the  removal  of  any  mountain.  He 
never  entertains  the  possibility  of  Yahweh  failing  his  people  at 
any  point;  the  failure  is  all  on  Israel's  side.  The  trials  and  dis- 
couragements that  overturn  the  faith  of  others  do  but  cause  him 
to  strike  root  deeper  into  the  love  and  power  of  God.  He  re- 
mains loyal  to  the  old  ways  and  the  ancestral  religion  when  others 
give  up  in  despair  and  would  exchange  old  faiths  for  new.  He 
pleads  earnestly  for  diligent  and  dignified  observance  of  the  outer 
forms  of  religion,  deprecating  severely  the  neglect  and  indiflfer- 

*  V.  Praefatio  in  duodecim  Propltelas. 

t  Vilae  prophetarum,  cited  in  Nestle V,  Marginalien,  28/..  Cf.  similar  statements  by  Doro- 
theus,  Ephraem  Syrus,  Hesychius,  and  Isidorus  Hisp.. 


THE   PROPHET  II 

ence  with  which  they  are  being  conducted.  Yet  he  is  no  mere 
formalist  or  ritualist,  but  a  man  ethically  and  spiritually  minded 
in  a  high  degree.  He  does  not  regard  ritual  as  an  end  in  itself 
or  as  an  opus  operatum,  but  as  the  outer  and  visible  sign  of  an 
inward  and  spiritual  grace,  the  expression  of  faith  in  and  devo- 
tion toward  Yahweh.  Its  neglect  indicates  a  lack  of  true  re- 
ligion. The  very  vigour  of  our  prophet's  faith  shows  that  his 
religion  does  not  lie  upon  the  surface  of  his  soul  and  that  it  can- 
not be  satisfied  with  externalities,  but  is  of  the  very  essence  of 
his  life  and  can  be  content  with  nothing  less  than  the  presence 
of  God.  In  this  respect  he  is  a  true  successor  of  the  great 
prophets. 

§4.    THE  MESSAGE  OF  MALACHI. 

The  task  of  this  unknown  prophet  was  to  rekindle  the  fires 
of  faith  in  the  hearts  of  a  discouraged  people.  Ezekiel  and  the 
author  of  Is.  chs.  40-55  had  kept  alive  the  faith  of  the  exiles  by 
assurances  of  the  speedy  approach  of  deliverance  and  by  promises 
of  the  establishment  of  the  coming  kingdom  of  God.  Ezekiel 
had  been  so  sure  of  this  as  to  prepare  a  set  of  regulations  for  the 
guidance  of  the  citizens  of  the  coming  kingdom.  Deliverance 
came  in  some  measure;  but  the  dawn  of  the  Messianic  age  was 
delayed.  Fading  hopes  were  revived  by  the  preaching  of  Haggai 
and  Zechariah.  Under  the  spur  of  their  enthusiasm,  the  temple 
was  rebuilt  and  faith  was  quickened.  All  obstacles  to  the  coming 
of  the  kingdom  being  now  removed,  the  prophets  and  the  people 
looked  confidently  for  the  appearance  of  the  longed-for  Golden 
Age.  They  went  so  far,  indeed,  as  to  identify  Zerubbabel  with 
the  expected  Messiah  and  to  crown  him  in  recognition  of  his 
right  (Zc.  6^-*^).  But  the  Messianic  age  still  delayed  its  coming. 
The  hopes  centred  in  Zerubbabel  were  dissipated  and  shattered. 
The  glowing  pictures  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  were  not  realised. 
The  first  zeal  for  the  new  temple  rapidly  cooled.  Israel  was  ap- 
parently as  far  from  exaltation  to  influence  and  power  now  as  she 
had  ever  been.  What  ground  was  there  for  encouragement  or 
hope?    Why  continue  denying  oneself  in  order  that  the  temple- 


12  MALACHI 

services  might  be  properly  maintained?  Yahweh  apparently 
had  no  interest  in  his  people  or  in  the  vindication  of  justice  and 
righteousness.  Was  the  service  of  Yahweh  worth  while?  Did 
it  yield  tangible  and  satisfactory  returns  to  its  adherents? 
^  In  the  midst  of  such  conditions  and  amid  such  sentiments, 
the  writer  of  Malachi  prepared  his  apologia  in  behalf  of  Yahweh. 
He  must  accomplish  two  things  at  least,  viz.  furnish  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  delay  in  the  fulfilment  of  Israel's  expec- 
tations and  re-establish  confidence  in  Yahweh  and  in  the  speedy 
coming  of  his  Messiah.  The  first  of  these  he  seeks  to  achieve 
by  the  genuinely  prophetic  method  of  transferring  the  responsi- 
bility for  the  delay  from  the  shoulders  of  Yahweh  to  those  of 
Israel  herself.  The  sins  of  Israel  render  it  inconceivable  that  the 
blessing  of  Yahweh  should  rest  upon  her  as  she  now  is.  Just  as 
Haggai  and  Zechariah  had  insisted  upon  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  as  the  only  way  to  the  favour  of  Yahweh,  so  our  prophet 
demands  certain  definite  and  tangible  action  as  a  prerequisite 
to  the  coming  of  the  desired  good./  The  corrupt  and  careless 
priesthood  must  mend  its  ways  and  return  to  the  ideal  condition 
that  prevailed  in  ancient  times  when  true  teaching  was  in  the 
priest's  mouth,  unrighteousness  was  not  found  upon  his  lips, 
and  by  his  blameless  life  he  turned  many  away  from  iniquity. 
His  conduct  now  is  an  insult  to  his  God.  The  sacrifices  and  offer- 
ings must  be  kept  up  to  proper  form  and  quality.  The  neglect 
of  these  is  an  unpardonable  offence.  No  gifts  will  be  forthcom- 
ing from  Yahweh  so  long  as  the  tithes  and  offerings  due  him  are 
withheld.  If  Israel  will  but  discharge  its  obligations  to  the  full, 
Yahweh  may  be  counted  upon  to  fulfil  all  his  promises  made 
through  the  projihets. 

Notwithstanding  the  emphasis  and  insistence  of  the  prophet 
upon  these  external  phases  of  the  religious  life,  he  is  not  on  that 
account  to  be  accused  of  a  shallow  conception  of  religion.  He 
deplores  the  neglect  and  contempt  of  these  things,  not  on  the 
score  that  they  themselves  are  essential  to  the  well-being  of  God, 
or  of  themselves  have  any  value  whatever  in  his  eyes;  but  on 
the  ground  that  the  neglect  is  a  symptom  of  a  state  of  mind  and 
heart  that  is  anything  but  pleasing  to  God.    It  reveals  a  lack 


THE  MESSAGE  OF  MALACHI  13 

of  reverence,  faith  and  love  that  is  a  prime  defect  in  Israel's 
religious  life.  The  people  and  the  priests  care  so  little  for 
Yahweh  that  they  do  not  observe  his  requirements  regarding 
ritual.  The  truly  pious  must  do  the  whole  will  of  God  with 
his  whole  heart. 

The  genuinely  inward  element  in  the  religion  of  Malachi  is 
also  shown  in  the  further  demands  for  reform  which  it  urges. 
The  old  prophetic  protest  against  social  injustice  sounds  forth 
again  in  3'^,  showing  that  the  ethical  interests  so  characteristic 
of  earHer  prophecy  lay  near  to  the  heart  of  this  prophet  also.  A 
special  phase  of  this  protest  is  the  denunciation  of  the  common 
practice  in  accordance  with  which  Jewish  husbands  divorce  their 
Jewish  wives  and  take  wives  from  the  surrounding  non- Jewish 
families  in  their  place.  The  cruelty  toward  the  divorced  wife 
that  is  involved  is  clearly  realised  and  keenly  resented  by  the 
prophet.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  characterise  the  procedure  as 
treachery  on  the  part  of  the  offender  toward  his  own  people. 
But,  more  than  this,  it  is  treachery  to  Yahweh.  It  brings  into 
the  heart  of  the  Jewish  family  those  who  have  no  interest  in  or 
care  for  the  things  of  Yahweh.  It  involves  the  birth  of  half- 
breed  children,  who  will  be  under  the  dominating  influence  of 
mothers  who  serve  not  Yahweh.  It  means  the  contamination 
of  Jewish  religious  life  at  its  source,  by  the  introduction  of 
heathen  rites  and  beliefs.  If  the  worship  of  Yahweh  is  to  con- 
tinue in  Israel,  or  the  favour  of  Yahweh  to  be  poured  out  upon 
Israel,  the  intermarriage  of  Jews  and  non- Jews  must  cease.  Is- 
rael, as  the  people  of  the  holy  God,  must  keep  herself  holy.  No 
contact  with  unholy  people  or  things  can  be  endured.  But  the 
adherents  of  other  gods  are  at  the  farthest  possible  remove  from 
being  holy  to  Yahweh.  Hence,  Israel  must  break  off  completely 
all  such  idolatrous  connections. 

The  prophet's  demands  involve  a  complete  change  of  heaff 
and  attitude  on  Israel's  part.  This  is  the  indispensable  condition 
for  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  age.  The  lack  of  this  requisite 
attitude  of  obedience  and  trust  is  the  all-sufl5cient  explanation  for 
the  withholding  of  Yahweh 's  favour  and  for  the  delay  in  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messianic  kingdom.    But  the  further  task  remained 


14  MALACm 

for  the  prophet,  viz.  that  of  rekindling  such  faith  and  hope  as 
would  furnish  the  motive-power  for  the  institution  and  execu- 
tion of  the  desired  reforms  and  so  render  possible  the  granting 
by  Yahweh  of  the  longings  of  the  pious.  Our  prophet  makes 
no  effort  to  demonstrate  the  validity  of  his  hope  for  the  future 
or  to  point  out  signs  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom.  Faith 
comes  not  by  reason.  He  contents  himself  with  the  ardent  affir- 
mation and  reiteration  of  his  own  firm  conviction.  He  would 
warm  their  hearts  by  the  contagious  enthusiasm  of  his  own  spirit. 
Whether  or  not  his  hopes  were  kindled  by  the  course  of  contem- 
porary history,  we  do  not  know.  The  author  of  Is.,  chs.  40-55, 
was  aroused  by  the  tidings  of  the  triumphant  career  of  Cyrus. 
The  appearance  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  was  coincident  with 
the  revolts  throughout  the  Persian  Empire  upon  the  death  of 
Cambyses  and  the  accession  of  Darius.  The  defeat  of  Persia 
by  Greece  at  Marathon  (490  B.C.),  Thermopylae  and  Salamis 
(480  B.C.),  and  Plataea  (479  b.c),  with  the  revolt  of  Egypt  aided 
by  the  Greeks  (460  B.C.),  may  have  awakened  expectations  in 
the  soul  of  our  prophet.  But  such  external  stimuli  and  supports 
were  not  indispensable  to  the  prophets.  They  continually  made 
the  sheer  venture  of  faith.  Our  author  shows  himself  capable 
of  such  venture  in  his  prediction  of  the  forerunner  who  is  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  the  coming  of  Yahweh.  That  his  thought  moves 
in  the  realm  of  spiritual  agencies  rather  than  in  that  of  political 
forces  is  also  seen  in  his  conception  of  the  coming  of  Yahweh 
as  sudden  and  as  overwhelming  in  its  destructive  and  purificatory 
effect.  In  keeping  with  the  trend  of  post-exilic  thought,  he  sets 
his  whole  mind  upon  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  his  king- 
dom. This  kingdom,  which  is  to  be  above  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world,  needs  not  the  assistance  of  any  earthly  power  to  es- 
tablish itself  in  its  rightful  place.  Yahweh  himself  will  bring  it 
into  its  own. 

The  problem  that  confronted  the  author  of  Malachi  and  his 
contemporaries  was  not  new  in  Israel.  It  was  the  ever-recurring 
question  as  to  why  the  fortunes  of  Israel  were  not  commensurate 
with  her  position  as  the  people  of  God.  How  could  the  justice 
of  God  be  demonstrated  and  vindicated  in  view  of  the  disasters 


THE   MESSAGE   OF   MALACHI  15 

that  continually  befell  his  people?  Why  should  other  nations 
constantly  triumph  at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  God?  The 
prophets  all  agree  with  the  people  that  Yahweh's  nation  ought 
to  prosper  to  an  extent  far  surpassing  all  other  nations.  The 
prophets  part  company  with  the  people  in  accounting  for  the 
discrepancy  between  Israel's  lot  and  Israel's  due  as  caused  by 
the  enormity  of  Israel's  sins.  Let  these  be  removed  and  the 
desired  harmony  between  external  fortune  and  spiritual  birth- 
right will  be  at  once  established.  The  author  of  Malachi  agrees 
in  this  with  all  his  predecessors.  Like  them,  he  conceives  of 
piety  as  entitled  to  its  material  rewards.  He  is  sure  that,  if 
those  rewards  are  not  bestowed  in  the  existing  dispensation,  they 
will  be  forthcoming  in  full  measure  in  the  Messianic  age.  The 
thought  that  piety  is  its  own  reward,  that  God  is  his  own  best 
gift,  finds  no  expression  from  him.  But,  at  a  time  when  faith 
was  wavering,  he  met  his  contemporaries  on  their  own  ground, 
and  thrilled  their  hearts  with  the  assurance  that  the  dawn  of 
the  Golden  Age  was  at  hand.  Not  only  so,  but  he  also  made 
this  mighty  eschatological  hope  operative  in  the  betterment  of 
the  moral  and  religious  conditions  of  his  own  day. 


§  5.    LITERATURE  ON  THE  BOOK  OF  MALACHI. 

I .     Commentaries. 

The  more  important  modern  commentaries  are  those  of 
Reinke  (1856),  Kohler  (1865),  Ewald  (1868),  Hitzig-Steiner 
(1881),  Orelli  (1888;  3d  ed.  1908),  Wellhausen  (1892;  3d  ed. 
1S98),  Nowack  (1897;  2d  ed.  1903),  G.  A.  Smith  (1898),  Marti 
(1903),  Driver  (1906),  van  Hoonacker  (1908),  and  Isopescul 
(1908). 

To  be  classified  with  these  are:  Hale\y's  translation  and  notes 
in  Revue  semitique  for  1909;  Marti's  translation  and  notes  in 
Kautzsch's  Heilige  Schrift,  ed.  3  (1910);  Duhm's  translation 
in  Die  Zwolf  Propheten  in  den  Versmassen  der  Urschrift  iiber- 
setzt  (1910),  with  the  accompanying  notes  in  Zeitschrijt  fur  die 
alttestamentliche  Wissenschaft,  vol.  XXXI  (191 1);   Kent's  trans- 


l6  MALACHI 

lation,  with  notes,  in  Sermons,  Epistles  and  Apocalypses  of  Israel's 
Prophets  (1910);  and  P.  Riessler,  Die  Kleinen  Propheten  oder 
das  Zwoljprophetenbuch  nach  dem  Urtext  iibersetzt  und  erkldrt 
(1911)- 

2.  Introductions. 

The  general  "Introductions"  to  the  Old  Testament  all  treat 
the  Book  of  Malachi.  The  more  important  are  those  of  Driver 
(new  ed.  1910),  Cornill  (6th  ed.  1908;  English  ed.  1907),  Konig 
(1893),  Strack  (6th  ed.  1906),  Kuenen  (1889),  Wildeboer  (3d 
ed.  1903),  Gautier  (1906),  R.  Comely  (Historicae  et  criticae  in- 
troductionis  in  libros  sacros  compendium  [1909]),  and  K.  Budde 
{Geschichte  der  alt-hebrdischen  Litter atur  [1906]). 

Special  introductions  and  treatments  of  special  topics  are:  W. 
R.  Smith  and  C.  C.  Torrey,  art.  "Malachi,"  Encyclopcedia  Bib- 
Uca  (1902);  A.  C.  Welch,  art.  "JMalachi,"  Hastings's  Diction- 
ary of  the  Bible  (1901);  Volck,  art.  "Maleachi,"  Protestantische 
Real-encyklopadie,  3d  ed.  (1905);  W.  H.  Bennett,  The  Religion 
of  the  Post-exilic  Prophets  (1907),  pp.  88-102;  Bohme,  "Zu 
Maleachi  und  Haggai,"  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  alttestamentliche  Wis- 
senschaft,  vol.  VII  (18S7),  pp.  210-217;  H.  Spoer,  "Some  New 
Considerations  towards  the  Dating  of  the  Book  of  Malachi," 
Jewish  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  XX  (1908),  pp.  167-186;  von 
Bulmerincq,  Der  Auspruch  iiber  Edom  im  Buche  Maleachi  (1906) ; 
P.  KJeinert,  Die  Profeten  Israels  in  sozialer  Beziehung  (1905), 
pp.  129^.;  C.  C.  Torrey,  "The  Prophecy  of  Malachi,"  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,  vol.  XVII  (1898),  pp.  1-15;  H.  Winckler, 
Altorientalische  Forschungen,  vol.  II  (1899),  pp.  531-539;  B. 
Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  II  (1888),  pp.  128-138; 
Idem,  Biblische  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments,  vol.  I  (1905),  pp. 
332-335- 

3.  Miscellaneous. 

Ed.  Sievers,  "Alttestamentliche  Miscellen,  No.  4,"  in  Berichte 
iiber  die  V erhandlungen  der  Koni^lich  Sdchsischen  Gesellschaft 
der  Wissenschaften  [Philologisch-historische  Klasse],  vol.  LVII 
(1905).     D.  H.  Miiller,  "Discours  de  Malachie."  Revue  biblique 


LITERATURE   ON   MALACHI  1 7 

for  1S96,  pp.  535-539  {  =  Strophenbau  wtd  Responsion  [1898],  pp. 
40-45).  Joh.  Bachmann,  Dodekapropheton  aethiopium ;  Heft  2 
— Der  Prophet  Maleachi  (1892).  A.  Schulte,  ''Die  Koptische 
Uebersetzung  der  Kleinen  Propheten  untersucht,"  Theologische 
Quartalschrift,  vol.  LXXVII  (1895),  pp.  219-229.  K.  Budde, 
"Zum  Texte  der  drei  letzten  Propheten,"  Zeitschrift  fur  die  alt- 
tcstamentliche  Wissenschaft,  vol.  XXVI  (1906).  F.  Buhl,  Ge- 
schichte  der  Edomiter  (1893).  T.  Noldeke,  art.  "Edom,"  Ency- 
clopcBdla  Biblica  (1901).  W.  von  Baudissin,  art.  "Edom,"  Prot- 
estantische  Real-encyklopadie,  3d  ed.  (1898).  Ed.  Meyer,  Die 
Entstehung  des  Judenthums  (1896),  pp.  105-119.  C.  C.  Torrey, 
"The  Edomites  in  Southern  Judah,"  Journal  of  Biblical  Liter- 
ature, vol.  XVII  (1898),  pp.  16-20.  Graetz,  "Die  Anfange  der 
Nabataerherrschaft,"  Monatsschrift  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Ge- 
schichte  des  Judenthums,  for  1875,  pp.  60-66. 


A  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  BOOK 
OF  MALACHL 

§  I.    THE  SUPERSCRIPTION  (i^. 

The  superscription  states  the  ultimate  source  of  the  prophecy, 
the  people  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  the  agent  of  its  trans- 
mission. The  superscription  of  no  prophetic  book  offers  less 
of  genuine  information;  those  of  Obadiah  and  Habakkuk  are 
its  only  rivals  in  this  respect. 

The  editorial  origin  of  this  superscription  is  now  quite  generally  con- 
ceded. This  opinion  is  supported  by  the  close  resemblance  in  form 
between  this  superscription  and  those  in  Zc.  9'  12',  which  are  likewise 
of  editorial  origin.  It  is  probable  that  all  three  were  written  by  the 
same  hand;  or,  at  least,  that  two  of  them  were  modelled  after  the  third 
one.  The  structure  is  too  unusual  to  make  it  likely  that  they  were  of 
independent  origin  {v.  i.). 

1.  Oracle  of  the  word  of  Yahweh  to  Israel]  For  the  use  of  the 
word  "oracle,"  v.  note  on  Na.  i^  in  ICC.  This  and  Zc,  9^  12^ 
are  the  only  passages  in  which  "oracle"  is  followed  by  "word," 
though  "oracle  of  Yahweh"  and  "word  of  Yahweh"  are  com- 
mon phrases.  "Israel"  here  represents  the  Jewish  community 
as  the  people  of  God  for  whom  all  the  ancient  promises  and 
expectations  are  to  be  realised. — Through  Malachi]  The  source 
of  this  statement  is  evidently  3^,  where  "Malachi"  is  not  a 
proper  name,  but  the  equivalent  of  "my  messenger"  or  "my 
angel."  (^  renders  here  "through  his  messenger."  ©  likewise 
treats  it  as  a  common  noun,  rather  than  as  a  proper  name. — 
For  the  personality  and  character  of  the  prophet,  v.  Introduc- 
tion, §  3;  and  for  the  time  of  his  activity,  v.  Introduction,  §  2. 

1.  Sn]  ^  iirl  =  S>:,  asinZc.  12";  so&S. — 'ON^::]  (g  ^77^01;  ouroO  = 
isnSd;  so  Bu..  (3  renders  my  angel  whose  name  is  called  Ezra,  the  scribe. 
Against  the  treatment  of  'c  as  a  bona-ftde  name  may  be  urged  (i)  the 
fact  that  the  name  is  not  found  elsewhere,  though  In*^^  is  a  common 

18 


I^  19 

word;  (2)  the  lack  of  any  definite  information  concerning  such  a  man; 
(3)  the  improbability  that  any  parent  would  bestow  such  a  name  upon 
an  infant;  (4)  the  absence  of  any  early  tradition  treating  it  as  a  proper 
name  {cf.  <&W).  If  it  were  a  proper  name,  the  affix  •>  might  be  either 
an  abbreviation  of  ni,  or  an  adjectival  ending.  Cf.  ms  and  nnix;  >a« 
and  n;avs;  •'oSs;  and  Sn'dVd,  etc.;  v.  No.,  art.  "Names,"  §  52,  EB..  The 
anonymous  author  has  been  variously  identified;  e.  g.  as  Ezra  (uf,  Jer., 
Calvin);  as  Mordecai  (Rabbi  Nachman);  as  Haggai  (various  rabbis; 
perhaps  also  the  view  of  the  editor  who  added  a  citation  from  Hg.  in 
05) ;  as  Joshua,  son  of  Jozedek  (Clement  of  Alexandria) ;  and  as  an  angel 
(Origen,  Tcrtullian,  Chrysostom).  The  earliest  witnesses  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  'd  as  a  proper  name  are  §,  6,  S,  TJ  and  the  title  of  the  book 
in  (6. 

d  adds  here:  0i(rde  drj  ivl  tcls  KapSlas  i/xuv.  ft"  has  it  under  obelus. 
Jer.  says,  "Hoc  in  Hebraico  non  habetur,  sed  puto  de  Aggaeo  additum 
in  quo  legimus:  et  nunc  ponite  super  corda  vestra,  etc.".  This  sup- 
position is  probably  correct,  for  (&^  '■  ''■  ^Q^  have  the  same  rendering  in 
Hg.  2'=  as  <B  here.  (^^  substitutes  et's  for  iiri  in  Hg.;  cf.  ($  on  Mai.  2% 
M  of  Hg.  2'5  =  D033S  Nj  icT;  hcncc  Gr.  would  restore  D332S  V>'  n:  i-:^!:' 
here.  Bach,  finds  in  this  gloss  from  (5  the  otherwise  unknown  name  of 
the  prophet,  by  supposing  (S>  to  represent  3^3  ■'in'''^'i,  the  original  of 
which  was  2^,2  idct.  But  3S3  iD"'!:'  is  not  good  Hebrew,  which  would 
require  either  aS  hy  'v,  or  Sy  a"?  iDia-  as  in  Hg.  2'6.  Cf.  Matthes,  ZAW. 
XXIII  (1903),  126/..  For  a  similar  marginal  citation  from  another 
book,  V.  the  quotation  from  Mi.  i^  in  i  K.  22-^. 


§2.    A  PROOF  OF  YAHWEH'S  LOVE   (i^-^). 

In  this  opening  section  the  prophet  meets  the  lament  of  his 
people  that  Yahweh  has  ceased  to  love  Judah,  by  reminding 
them  of  the  recent  overthrow  of  Edom,  their  hated  foe,  as  an 
evidence  of  the  love  that  they  are  calling  in  question.  This  ref- 
erence to  the  fate  of  Edom  would  seem  to  fix  the  date  of  this 
prophecy;  but  unfortunately  the  information  here  is  too  vague 
and  our  knowledge  of  the  later  history  of  Edom  too  incomplete 
to  render  any  degree  of  certainty  as  to  this  question  possible; 
V.  Introduction,  §  2.  These  verses  really  state  the  theme  of  the 
whole  book;  for  the  writer's  task  is  that  of  showing  Israel,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  Yahweh  loves  her  and,  on  the  other,  that  her 
own  sinful  conduct  prevents  her  from  enjoying  the  full  fruitage 
of  that  love. 


20  MALACHI 

2.  /  have  loved  you,  says  Yahwch]  The  tense  of  the  verb  in- 
dicates a  love  that  has  not  only  operated  in  the  past,  but  is  also 
in  effect  at  the  present.  This  is  the  proposition  that  the  prophet 
seeks  to  establish.  It  was  not  a  new  idea  in  any  sense,  but  had 
been  the  accepted  teaching  regarding  Yahweh's  attitude  to- 
ward his  own  people  for  centuries;  cf.  Ho.  1 1^  Dt.  f  lo'^  Ez.  i6. 
The  trouble  was  that  at  this  time  the  people  had  lost  faith  in 
Yahweh's  love.  They  had  become  skeptical. — But  you  say, 
Wherein  hast  thou  loved  us?]  Under  the  form  of  question  and 
answer,  a  characteristic  feature  of  the  style  of  this  prophecy, 
the  prophet  carries  on  an  argument  with  his  readers.  Cf.  i^-  "^ 
2i7  ^7. 8. 13.  lY^Q  same  usage  appears  in  germ  in  Je.  13'''^'  15^ ' , 
while  Zc,  chs.  1-8,  makes  much  use  of  the  question  and  answer 
as  a  means  to  secure  \dvidness.  The  question  here  on  Israel's 
part  calls  for  a  bill  of  particulars  from  the  prophet.  What  evi- 
dence has  he  that  Yahweh  still  loves  his  people?  Do  not  the 
facts  indicate  that  he  has  ceased  to  care  for  their  interests? 
This  state  of  mind  in  Judah  was  due  largely  to  their  long- 
continued  sufferings  and  to  their  repeated  disappointments.  The 
people  had  returned  from  exile  wuth  the  full  expectation  of  the 
immediate  coming  of  the  Messianic  kingdom.  They  had  been 
spurred  on  to  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  by  similar  promises 
from  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  But  the  kingdom  had  not  come; 
the  power  of  Persia  was  still  unbroken.  The  lot  of  Judah  was 
one  of  hardship  and  oppression.  Since  the  responsibility  for 
this  condition  must  be  borne  by  Yahweh,  the  only  conclusion 
to  which  the  discouraged  people  could  come  was  that  Yahweh 
no  longer  loved  them.  The  prophet's  reply  to  their  demand  for 
evidence  to  the  contrary  was  immediate  and  direct. — Is  not 
Esau  a  brother  of  Jacob  2  It  is  the  oracle  of  Yahweh]  Esau  here 
represents  Edom,  as  is  shown  clearly  by  v.  *.  For  other  cases  of 
the  same  usage,  cf.  Gn.  36'-  ^-  '^  Je.  49*-  ^^  Ob.  ^,  Similarly  Jacob 
represents  the  people  of  Judah,  as  also  in  2^^  Is.  41^  42^*  Je.  3o^*''  ^^ 
Ps.  2o\  and  often  elsewhere.  Of  the  various  members  of  the 
Hebraic  family,  Edom  is  the  only  one  that  is  ever  recognised 
in  the  Old  Testament  as  sustaining  the  close  relationship  of 
brother  to  Israel;    cf.  Am.  i"  Dt.  23^.    The  very  closeness  of 


r2-3 


21 


the  tie  seems  to  have  made  the  hostility  that  developed  all  the 
more  bitter;  cf.  Ob.  '°-  ^2.  As  brothers,  Edom  and  Judah  were 
on  the  same  footing  before  Yahweh.  Yet  he  had  chosen  Judah 
rather  than  Edom  as  the  object  of  his  love.  Earlier  commen- 
tators saw  here  evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination.*  But 
it  is  clear  that  the  writer  had  no  such  thought  in  mind.  He  was 
merely  concerned  to  indicate  clearly  that  the  choice  of  Judah 
was  an  act  of  free  grace  on  the  part  of  Yahweh;  he  had  been 
under  no  constraint  to  choose  as  he  had  done.  On  the  conclud- 
ing phrase,  with  which  the  divine  authority  of  the  statement  is 
asserted,  v.  H.^^,  p.  59. — But  I  have  loved  Jacob  (3)  and  hated 
Esau]  The  love  for  Jacob  is  demonstrated  by  the  hatred  to- 
ward Esau,  convincing  evidence  of  which  is  forthcoming.  This 
reflection  of  the  feelings  of  Judah  toward  Edom  is  a  clear  indi- 
cation of  the  post-exilic  origin  of  the  prophecy.  The  bitterness 
of  Judah  toward  Edom  grew  increasingly  intense  in  the  post- 
exihc  period.  The  insults  and  injuries  inflicted  by  Edom  at 
the  time  of  the  Babylonian  captivity  rankled  in  the  memory  of 
Judah  and  constituted  a  source  whence  increased  significance 
was  drawn  and  attached  to  every  fresh  injury,  fancied  or  real. 
The  constant  encroachment  of  Edom  upon  Jewish  territory, 
made  necessary  by  the  unceasing  advance  of  the  Nabataeans, 
kept  the  hostility  continually  alive.  A  love  for  Judah  that  did 
not  involve  corresponding  hatred  for  Edom  was  unthinkable. 
The  humiliation  and  downfall  of  Edom  was  an  indispensable 
accompaniment  of  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  age;  cf.  Ob.  ^^'^'■ 
Is.  34^-  ^  63^'^  Je.  49^^-  ''^-  ^^,  The  older  interpreters,!  hesitating 
to  make  the  prophet  ascribe  such  feelings  to  Yahweh,  sought  to 
make  "hate"  mean  "love  less."  But  it  is  a  question,  not  of 
degrees  of  love,  but  of  love  or  no  love.  Hebrew  prophets  had 
no  scruples  about  ascribing  their  own  deepest  convictions  and 
feelings  to  Yahweh. — And  I  have  made  his  mountains  a  desolation 
and  his  inheritance  pastures  in  the  wilderness]  The  last  phrase 
occurs  also  in  Je.  9^°  23^°  Jo.  i^^-  ^  2^^  Ps.  65^2.  M,  has  here  in  its 
place  "to  jackals  of  the  wilderness";  but  this  does  not  form  a 
satisfactory  completion  of  "I  have  made  his  inheritance."  iM 
requires  either  the  insertion  of  a  second  verb,  e.  g."'  and  I  have 

*  E.  g.  Calvin.  t  E.  g.  J.  H.  Michaelis,  Dathe,  Rosenm.. 


22  MALACHI 

given  his  inheritance  to,"  etc.;  or  the  use  of  the  verb  "made" 
in  two  different  senses,  viz.  "I  have  made  his  mountains  a  deso- 
lation and  I  have  put  (or  placed)  his  inheritance  for  the  jackals," 
etc..  But  the  oldest  witnesses  to  the  original  rendering  of  CS, 
including  ^,  support  the  reading  here  adopted.  The  prophet 
here  in  all  probability  refers  to  some  calamity  that  has  recently 
befallen  Edom  and  cites  it  as  indisputable  evidence  of  Yahweh's 
love  for  Judah.  As  to  the  historical  event  he  may  have  had  in 
mind,  v.  Introduction,  §  2. — 4.  If  Edom  says,  We  are  beaietv  down, 
bill  we  will  rebuild  the  ruins]  The  prophet  now  meets  the  objec- 
tion that  the  overthrow  of  Edom  is  not  final,  but  only  for  the 
moment.  "She  has  fallen  before,"  says  Judah,  "but  only  to 
rise  again." — Thus  says  Yakweh  of  hosts]  The  word  of  Yahweh 
is  set  over  against  the  word  of  Edom,  in  paralysing  contrast. 
This  title  is  the  most  frequent  designation  of  Yahweh  in  this 
prophecy,  occurring  no  less  than  twenty-one  times.  On  its  usage 
and  significance,  cf.  H.'^^,  pp.  83/.. — They  may  build,  but  I  shall 
tear  down]  The  futility  of  their  efforts  as  opposed  to  Yahweh's 
will  is  thus  clearly  brought  into  view.  The  destruction  already 
accomplished  is  fatal.  There  can  be  no  permanent  recovery  from 
it. — And  men  will  call  them,  ^^ wicked  country''']  The  smitten 
state  of  Edom  will  be  convincing  proof  to  all  that  she  was  pre- 
eminently wicked.  This  is  the  view  of  the  old  theology,  shared 
by  all  the  prophets,  viz.  that  disaster  and  suffering  are  always 
caused  by  sin  and  that  the  greater  the  affliction,  the  greater 
must  have  been  the  sin  that  caused  it.  The  term  "wicked" 
here  probably  includes  much  of  the  bitterness  and  contempt 
associated  with  its  use  in  the  mind  of  the  members  of  the  later 
Jewish  community.  Among  these,  it  came  to  be  a  technical 
epithet  opposed  to  the  term  "pious"  (T'Dn)  which  was  applied 
to  those  loyal  to  Yahweh  and  faithful  in  their  adherence  to  all 
the  tenets  of  the  law.  The  "wicked,"  however,  were  those  who 
apostatised  from  Yahwism  or  persecuted  the  followers  of  Yah- 
weh. Such  were  the  Edomites  in  very  fact. — And  "the  people 
against  whom  Yahweh  is  angry  perpetually^^]  This  is  another  epi- 
thet which  men  will  apply  to  Edom.  Its  ruins  will  be  a  standing 
witness  to  the  abiding  wrath  of  God.  Some  scholars,  striving 
to  make  this  material  conform  to  metrical  standards,  would  omit 


I^-^  23 

the  last  phrase  "for  ever"  or  "perpetually."  But  this  is  the 
essential  element  in  the  sentence.  The  prophet's  purpose  is  to 
convince  Judah  that  Edom's  overthrow  is  final,  not  a  mere  tem- 
porary disaster  due  to  a  passing  fit  of  anger  on  the  part  of  Yah- 
weh. — 5.  And  your  eyes  will  see  and  you  yourselves  will  say]  The 
proof  of  Yahweh's  love  and  power  is  not  to  be  indefinitely  post- 
poned, but  will  come  with  crushing  force  within  the  lifetime  of 
the  prophet's  contemporaries.  As  each  successive  attempt  of 
the  Edomites  to  re-establish  themselves  is  thwarted  by  Yahweh, 
they  will  come  to  realise  the  range  and  scope  of  Yahweh's  pur- 
pose and  the  effectual  working  of  his  love.  What  they  them- 
selves shall  see  will  lead  them  to  say — ^^  Yahweh  is  great  above 
the  territory  of  Israel'^]  Judah  will  be  at  length  convinced  that 
Yahweh  has  not  forsaken  his  people.  The  rendering  of  this  sen- 
tence which  is  now  generally  adopted  is  "  Yahweh  is  great  be- 
yond the  border  of  Israel";*  that  is,  Yahweh's  power  is  recog- 
nised as  extending  to  nations  other  than  Israel.  But  at  the  time 
when  this  prophecy  was  written,  there  was  little  question  in 
Judah  as  to  the  extent  of  Yahweh's  power.  The  question  rather 
was  as  to  his  love  for  and  interest  in  Israel.  Hence,  what  is 
needed  here  is  a  statement  expressing  the  thought  that  Yahweh 
has  convincingly  demonstrated  his  love  for  Israel.  Further,  the 
prepositional  phrase  rendered  "beyond"  nowhere  else  has  that 
sense.  It  occurs  in  Gn.  i''  i  S.  if^  Ez.  1^  Jon.  4^  Ne.  i23i-  ^'^-  ^' 
2  Ch.  13^  24-"  26^^,  and  it  always  means  "over,"  "above,"  or 
"upon."  The  prophet  pictures  Yahweh  as  enthroned  over  Is- 
rael in  majesty  and  power  and  attracting  the  wonder  and  rever- 
ence of  the  world  at  large.  The  Messianic  age  for  which  Israel 
has  so  long  looked  in  vain  is  thus  to  come  within  the  lifetime  of 
the  prophet's  audience. 

2.  vnanx]  Present  pf.;  Ges.  ^^"«e. — a-T:Ni]  Pf.  with  waw  conjunc- 
tive, co-ordinate  with  the  preceding  present  pf.. — '''  dnj]  The  only  oc- 
currence of  this  phrase  in  Mai..  Mart^  adds  mN3i  mtr.  cs.;  so  Now."^, 
Kent.  But  ''  idn  in  ^^  lacks  's,  and  metrical  considerations  have  no 
force  in  prose.  Boh.  drops  ''  'i  as  a  gloss;  so  Siev.,  Bu..  But  in  a 
writing  which  cites  divine  authority  as  frequently  as  Mai.  does,  the 

*  So  e.  g.  Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hi.,  Ew.,  Umbreit,  Reinka,  Schegg,  We.,  Now.,  GASm.,  Marti, 
Dr.,  Or.,  van  H..  Hal.,  Du.'"''  .  Cf.  Hd.,  "Let  Y.  be  magnified  from  the  border  of  Israel." 
*  Above"  is  preferred  by  Ke.,  Koh.,  Pu.,  Bulmerincq. 


24  MALACHI 

closeness  of  '^  'i  to  the  foregoing  '>  isn  is  no  reason  for  suspecting  the 
text;  cj.  1 8-  =•  '"•  ". — apy>  nx  ansi]  (Sf<  adds  X^Tei  K<upios.  In  (8  and  in 
the  quotation  of  this  and  the  following  phrase  in  Rom.  g'^  the  vbs.  are 
rendered  by  the  aorist. — 3.  pi:pS]  Rd.  r\^i  (=  niNj;  cf.  Zp.  2«  Je.  q» 
Ez.  255  Ps.  65"),  dropping  p*^  as  dittog.  from  the  preceding  word;  so 
Torrey,  SS.,  Now.(?),  van  H.,  Kent.  The  reading  nijS  (=  mxj^)  was 
proposed  by  Capellus  {Com.  ct  Jiot.  crit.  [1698],  p.  183);  so  also  Boh., 
Sta.*'^'-  '",  Gr.,  Du.^'"-.  nij  is  supported  by  the  reading  e/s  SibfMra  in 
the  oldest  witnesses  to  the  text  of  C6;  viz.  &"  (il^°-^  and  also  by  & 
which  renders  it  by  "dwellings."  The  Comp.  and  Sixtine  edd.  also 
have  SwyuoTtt.  (S-^"!<,  HP.  95,  185,  310,  A,  Arm.  have  els  Sdixara,  cer- 
tainly an  error  for  du/mra.  Aq.  els  <reiprjvas.  U  dracones.  2,  ©,  eh 
dveirl^aTa.  ul  unto  desolalion.  Oort  del.  Pijr  as  dittog.,  reading  lain^. 
Che.  nn'D';'.  Marti  treats  mjpS  as  a  corruption  of  V  'n-r^;  so  Siev., 
Bu.;  so  apparently  Eth.,  which  certainly  does  not  recognise  the  pres- 
ence of  ni:n.  Bulmerincq,  pjn  iiyc*?,  with  nais  as  an  explanatory  gloss. 
For  ni^,  V.  note  on  Zp.  2^  in  7CC..  Scholars  who  retain  nun,  which 
is  &ir.,  treat  it  either  as  a  fem.  pi.  corresponding  to  D'':n  (so  AE.,  Koh., 
Ke.)  or  as  connected  with  Ar.  iatia'a  and  so  contracted  from  mNjn  = 
"dwellings"  (so  Ges.  in  Thesaurus);  but  neither  the  noun  nor  the 
root  appears  elsewhere  in  OT.. — 4.  12]  With  conditional  force,  as  in 
Dt.  14"  I  S.  2o"- »'  Pr.  3o<;  so  &  Ul  Iff.— inNP]  PI.  in  &  QI.  Bu.  ncs'  (?). 
The  form  is  better  taken  as  a  3d  fem.  sg.  than  as  2d  raasc.  sg., 
though  onx  is  usually  treated  as  a  masc.  But  names  of  countries 
regularly  take  the  fem.  and  it  is  the  country  personified  that  is  spoken 
of  here;  cf.  also  Je.  35'^  36^  Ez.  32-". — ij;;'!:n]  CS  KaTia-Tpairrai;  cf.  Ka- 
Ta<TTpi\j/w  for  DnnN.  ^  (5  =  u^e  are  made  poor,  as  a  Polal  from  en  = 
"be  needy."  Its  only  other  occurrence  is  as  Poel  in  Je.  5"  (where 
text  is  doubtful);  hence  Now.  would  point  as  Poal  here.  Syr.  ras  = 
"strike  with  the  hammer"  and  Ar.  ralla  =  "be  beaten"  are  related 
roots,  as  likewise  Heb.  Y^'\  and  oo-\.  The  fact  that  it  is  used  of  build- 
ings in  Je.  5"  does  not  prevent  its  use  here,  in  a  figurative  sense,  of  a 
country  or  people;  contra  We.. — aitt'j]  'ty  is  often  used  to  express  the 
idea  of  re-doing  a  thing  as  here. — iN-ipi]  The  3d  p.  pi.  act.  used  in- 
definitely, as  the  equivalent  of  a  pass.;  cf.  (&  iirLKKr)dr)(reTai.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  change  to  n"JPi,  with  Marti. — njjc'-i]  A  noun  in  gen.  with 
a  cstr.  to  express  an  adjectival  idea;  Ges.  ^^ '-'  '\ — oSiy-ny]  Omitted  mtr. 
cs.  by  Siev.,  Marti.,  Now.*^,  Kent;  but  v.  s.. — 5.  Sij^]  (S  ip.eya\vv0ri.  H 
magnificetur ;  so  &.  Hal.  ^^VJ}  =  "has  done  great  things."  'J  here  is  = 
"is  glorified"  or  "has  shown  his  greatness";  cf.  Ps.  35"  40"  70°. — 
Spo]  The  rendering  of  (&  vnepdvio  and  B  super  is  better  than  that  of  & 
21  =  beyottd;  v.  s..  The  regular  idioms  for  "  beyond  "  are  .i''j,'si . .  .  jc  (Ju. 
i«  I  S.  9=  16"  Ex.  3o><),  '^"'i'^'^  (Ezr.  9^),  and  iaj;3  (Dt.  passim).— 
Siaj]  a  pi.. 


25 


§  3-  YAHWEH  HONOURS  THEM  THAT  HONOUR 

HIM    (l6-29). 

Having  shown  in  §  2  that  there  was  no  warrant  for  continuing 
to  doubt  the  love  of  Yahweh  toward  his  people,  the  prophet  now 
proceeds  to  indicate  the  causes  that  make  it  impossible  for  Yah- 
weh to  let  this  love  have  full  sway.  Starting  with  the  general 
principle  that  a  people  must  show  honour  toward  its  God,  he 
charges  Israel  with  heaping  dishonour  upon  Yahweh  by  indiffer- 
ence, carelessness,  and  deception  in  the  bringing  of  its  sacrificial 
gifts  (i®'*).  No  sacrifice  at  all  were  better  than  this  (i^").  In 
the  heathen  world,  due  reverence  is  shown  to  Yahweh;  but  in 
his  own  city  and  temple  he  is  treated  with  contempt.  For  blem- 
ished animals  are  substituted  for  sound  and  healthy  ones  which 
alone  are  suitable  for  sacrifice.  Hence  curses  rather  than  bless- 
ings must  be  the  lot  of  such  worshippers  (i"-").  It  is  especially 
incumbent  upon  the  priests,  the  ministers  of  Yahweh,  to  see  to 
it  that  he  is  fitly  honoured  in  the  proper  conduct  of  the  ritual. 
Failure  to  secure  this  will  bring  upon  them  a  terrible  curse  for 
their  unfaithfulness  to  the  covenant  between  them  and  Yahweh. 
In  days  gone  by,  the  priesthood  lived  up  to  the  full  measure  of  its 
responsibility;  but  now,  they  are  leaders  in  wickedness  rather 
than  in  righteousness.  Consequently,  the  low  esteem  in  which 
they  are  now  generally  held  is  the  due  reward  of  their  conduct 
as  perverters  of  the  law  (2^-'). 

6.  A  son  honours  his  father]  Reverence  for  parents  was  an 
outstanding  Semitic  virtue;  cf.  Dt.  s^'^  ai^^-^i  and  the  Code  of 
Hammurabi,  §§  186,  192,  193,  195.  The  term  "fatherhood," 
according  to  Semitic  usage,  connotes  authority  rather  than  love, 
though  the  latter  is  by  no  means  excluded.* — And  a  servant  fears 
his  master]  The  word  "fears"  is  supplied  upon  the  basis  of  (6. 
The  verbs  "honour"  and  "fear"  express  their  customary  mean- 
ings. These  are  the  relations  that  usually  obtain  and  should 
obtain  between  fathers  and  sons,  masters  and  servants.  The 
word  "  servant "  may  denote  either  a  free  servant  or  a  slave.    The 

•  Cf.  GASm.. 


26  MALACHI 

latter  certainly  had  good  reason  to  fear  his  master;  cf.  Ex.  21^  ^■ 
2^  '•  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  §§  197-199,  205,  210,  214,  217, 
etc.. — But  if  I  be  a  father,  where  is  my  honour  ?  A  nd  if  I  be  a  master, 
where  is  my  reverence?]  The  honour  and  reverence  due  to  Yahweh 
from  his  people  have  not  been  rendered  to  him.  The  idea  of  the 
worshipper  as  the  "slave"  or  "servant"  of  Yahweh  was  one  of 
long  standing  in  Israel;  cf.  3"  Zp.  3^  i  S.  3^  i  K.  8^^  Ex.  3^2^! 
Ezr.  5".  The  conception  of  Yahweh  as  the  "  father"  of  his  peo- 
ple was  also  not  new  with  this  prophet;  v.  Ho.  11^  Ex.  4--  '■  Je.  3* 
Is.  43«.  Cf.  Is.  9«  63!'"'  64**  Ps.  68''  89^6  10313.  On  the  deity  as 
an  object  of  fear,  cf.  Gn.  ^v'^. — Says  Yahweh  of  hosts  to  you,  0 
priests,  who  despise  my  name]  This  is  the  favourite  title  of  God 
in  this  prophecy;  v.  on  v.*;  hence  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for. 
dropping  "of  hosts"  here  as  some  do  for  the  sake  of  a  suppositi- 
tious metre.  The  priests,  who  of  all  men  should  have  held  Yah- 
weh in  honour,  are  charged  with  holding  his  name  in  contempt. 
The  "name"  and  the  personality  were  so  closely  associated  in 
Hebrew  thought  as  to  be  almost  Identical.*  To  despise  the 
"name,"  therefore,  was  to  despise  Yahweh  himself. — But  you 
say.  How  have  we  despised  thy  name  ?]  This  question  opens  the 
way  for  a  bill  of  particulars ;  cf.v.~.  Concrete  facts  are  now  called 
for. — 7.  In  bringing  upon  my  altar  polluted  food]  In  Ez.  44^, 
the  fat  and  the  blood  are  called  the  food  of  Yahweh;  cf.  Lv. 
3"-  16  2i6-8-  n.  21.  22  22"  Nu.  28^.  The  same  idea  holds  here  as 
is  clear  from  v.  ^.  That  the  show-bread  is  not  meant  is  clear 
from  the  fact  that  the  "food"  is  presented  upon  the  "altar," 
whereas  the  show-bread  was  laid  upon  a  special  table.  The  na- 
ture of  the  pollution  or  defilement  also  is  indicated  in  v.  ^.  The 
solicitude  of  this  writer  in  behalf  of  the  proper  observance  of  the 
sacrificial  ritual  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  attitude  of  the 
prophets  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.;  e.  g.  Am.  4''  s^'-"  Ho.  6*^  Is. 
jii-i6_  Yet,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  prophet's  indigna- 
tion was  aroused,  not  because  of  the  neglect  of  sacrifice  per  se, 
but  because  of  the  indifference  toward  Yahweh  that  it  reflected. 
The  religion  of  the  day  was  a  hollow  form;  there  was  no  deep 
conviction  or  uplifting  de\otion  in  it. — But  you  say.  How  have 

*  Cf.  F.Giesebtecht,  Die allleslamentlicheSchdfzungdtsCottesnamens  (igoi),  17/.,  67/.,  88/.. 


I«.8  '  27 

we  polluted  it?]  M.  reads  "thee"  for  "it";  but  this  is  virtually 
to  repeat  the  question  of  v.  ^  and  it  presupposes  the  charge  of 
having  polluted  Yahweh  himself,  which  is  hardly  thinkable. 
Hence,  it  is  better  to  read  "it"  with  (^  ®.  This  is  better  than  to 
omit  the  phrase,*  or  to  drop  merely  "and  you  say"  and  trans- 
pose the  question  to  the  end  of  v.  ^.f — In  that  you  say,  The  table 
of  Yahweh  is  contemptible]  This  is  rather  a  sentiment  which  the 
prophet  ascribes  to  them  than  a  statement  which  they  have  ac- 
tually made.  Interpreting  their  attitude  by  their  actions,  this 
is  the  state  of  mind  in  which  he  finds  them.  For  other  instances 
of  "say"  in  the  sense  "say  to  oneself"  i.  e.  "think,"  v.  Ex.  2^* 
2  S.  2ii*'  2  K.  5".  The  priests  had  evidently  come  to  regard  it 
as  of  little  consequence  whether  the  sacrifices  were  properly 
conducted  or  not.  The  term  "  table  of  Yahweh  "  occurs  only  here 
and  in  v.  ^-.  It  may  apply  to  the  table  of  show-bread  (Ex,  25^'' 
I  K.  7^*  Nu.  4'),  but  it  is  more  probably  a  general  term  here,  in- 
cluding that  table  and  the  altar  (Ez.  41^2  44I'').  The  use  of  such 
a  term  is  a  survival  from  the  time  when  the  sacrifice  was  thought 
of  as  a  meal  of  which  the  Deity  partook  along  with  his  wor- 
shippers.— 8.  And  when  you  bring  the  blind  to  sacrifice,  is  there 
no  harm?  And  when  you  bring  the  lame  and  the  sick,  is  there  no 
harm?]  Law  and  custom  required  that  every  sacrificial  victim 
should  be  free  from  spot  or  blemish,  sound  in  every  particular; 
V.  Dt.  1521  171  Lv.  22is'^-  22ff-  Ex.  12^  29I  Nu.  6'*  19^  Ez.  45^3. 
Even  the  ministering  official  himself  must  possess  the  same  per- 
fection; V.  Lv.  21^^  f-.  Requirements  of  this  kind,  it  is  probable, 
originated  in  the  earlier  days  when  disease  and  deformity  were 
looked  upon  as  due  to  the  malevolent  activity  of  demons,  and 
persons  and  animals  so  afflicted  were  naturally  regarded  as  tabu 
or  unclean  in  the  sight  of  Yahweh.  But  here,  as  the  following 
questions  show,  the  sacrifice  is  thought  of  as  a  gift  to  Yahweh^ 
and  the  blemishes  as  imperfections  in  the  gift  which  reflect  slight 
regard  on  the  part  of  the  donor  for  the  one  to  whom  the  gift  is 
offered.  The  exact  force  of  the  last  phrase  is  uncertain.  It  is 
most  easily  understood  as  a  rhetorical  question, J  the  answer  to 
which  is  patent  to  all.    But  it  may  also  be  regarded  as  the  state- 

•  Contra  We.,  Now..  f  Contra  Bu..  {  So  01  B;    ®  is  as  ambiguous  as  SH. 


28  MALACHI 

ment  of  a  sentiment  attributed  to  the  accused  priests,*  the  words 
"you  say"  or  "you  think"  being  understood. — Ofer  it  now  to  thy 
governor,  mil  he  accept  it?]  How  much  less  can  Yahweh  be  ex- 
pected to  be  pleased  with  it!  M  reads  "accept  thee";  but  the 
text  of  (5  H  seems  preferable  and  is  supported  by  i'"".  The 
same  confusion  of  suffixes  has  occurred  in  i^  The  word  rendered 
"governor"  furnishes  a  slight  indication  as  to  the  date  of  the 
prophecy.  It  occurs  only  in  exilic  and  post-exilic  writings  (viz. 
Je.,  Ez.,  K.,  Hg.,  Ezr.,  Ne.,  Est.,  and  the  Elephantine  papyri), 
is  probably  borrowed  from  Assyrian,  and  is  used  only  of  governors 
appointed  by  foreign  rulers,  except  in  i  K.  lo^^  a  very  late  addi- 
tion,! where  it  is  applied  to  the  subordinates  of  Solomon.  Cf. 
Introduction,  §  2. — Or  will  he  receive  you  graciously?]  Lit.  "lift 
up  your  face  "  i.  e.  make  you  to  look  up  in  gladness  and  confi- 
dence because  of  his  kindness.  The  same  idiom  is  used  in  2', 
and  often  elsewhere,  to  express  the  idea  of  showing  partiality. 
Here,  however,  the  meaning  "show  favour"  contains  no  impHca- 
tion  of  injustice. — Says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  There  is  no  sufficient 
reason  for  the  omission  of  this  phrase  as  a  gloss; |  cf.  vv.  ^-  ^-  ^°- 
n.  i3_ — 9.  ^^^(/  now,  seek  the  favour  of  God  that  he  may  he  gracious 
to  us]  Cf.  Zc.  7^  Dn.  9^^.  This  is  an  ironical  suggestion, §  as  the 
sequel  shows.  The  prophet  includes  himself  as  one  in  need  of  the 
divine  favour  even  as  those  whom  he  addresses.  The  innocent 
are  involved  with  the  guilty  in  the  sufferings  occasioned  by  the 
sins  of  the  latter  and  are  consequently  in  equal  need  of  the  mercy 
of  God. — From  your  ha^id  has  this  been]  This  is  a  gloss,**  occa- 
sioned by  the  pronoun  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  sentence. 
Some  reader,  fearful  lest  the  prophet  by  including  himself  among 
those  in  need  of  mercy  might  seem  to  be  acknowledging  that  he 
himself  was  one  of  those  responsible  for  the  miseries  of  Judah, 
inserted  this  disclaimer  in  order  that  the  responsibility  might 
be  placed  squarely  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  to  whom  it  be- 
longed.   The  interruption  between  the  implied  protasis  in  the 

•  So  «.  g.  Rosenm.. 

t  So  Gie.  (ZAW.  I,  233),  Benzinger,  Kittel,  Sta.  and  Schwally,  Kamphaiisen.  el  al.,  adloc. 

\  Contra  Marti,  Now.",  Siev.,  el  al.. 

§  It  is  taken  as  a  genuine  call  to  repentance  by  Hi.,  We.,  Now.,  el  al.. 

•*  So  Marti,  Now.",  Siev.. 


l9-10  29 

previous  sentence  and  the  apodosis  in  the  succeeding  question 
makes  its glossarial  origin  c\ea.r.— Will  he  be  gracious  toward  you?] 
Lit.  "will  he  lift  up  faces  from  you?",  a  form  of  the  phrase  no- 
where else  found.  This  rhetorical  question  calls  for  a  negative 
answer.  The  conduct  of  the  priests  effectually  hinders  Yahweh 
from  showing  them  any  favour. — Says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  is 
omitted  by  some  as  a  gloss,*  but  without  due  cause;  v.  on  v.  ^. 
With  V.  ^'',  the  prophet  takes  a  new  start  and  represents  Yah- 
weh as  entreating  the  priests  to  discontinue  their  sacrificial, 
rites  which  are  so  distasteful  to  him. — 10.  O,  that  there  were  some 
one  among  you  to  close  the  doors,  so  that  you  might  not  kindle  mine 
altar  in  vain]  The  double  doors  of  the  temple  court  are  the  ones 
meant;  cf.Ez.^i^^-^*.  The  closing  of  these  would  cut  off  access 
to  the  altar.  The  sacrifices  which  bulk  so  large  in  the  ritual  are 
worse  than  useless  in  Yahweh 's  sight  as  they  are  now  performed. 
These  words  have  been  differently  interpreted  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  the  last  word  has  a  twofold  meaning,  viz.  "in  vain" 
and  "gratis."  Hence  some  have  seen  here  evidence  that  the 
priests  had  become  too  lazy  and  indifferent  even  to  close  the 
temple  doors  at  the  proper  time.f  Others  interpret  to  the  effect 
that  the  meanest  attendant  of  the  temple  now  demands  a  reward 
for  the  simplest  action,  even  the  closing  of  the  doors.  J — /  have 
no  pleasure  in  you,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  Yet  the  very  purpose 
of  the  sacrifices  was  to  make  sure  of  the  favour  of  Yahweh  by 
affording  him  pleasure.— A^or  will  I  accept  an  offering  from  your 
hand]  This  language  recalls  the  sentiments  of  previous  proph- 
ecy; e.  g.  Am.  521  f-  Ho.  6''  8'^  Is.  i"  ''•.  Though  the  particular 
thing  to  which  this  prophet  takes  exception  is  different  from  that 
objected  to  by  the  former  prophets,  yet  the  central  interest  of 
all  is  the  same.  They  insist  upon  a  right  conception  of  Yahweh 
and  a  proper  attitude  of  mind  and  heart  toward  him.  Amos 
and  his  immediate  successors  opposed  the  cultus  because  of  the 
superstitious  and  overzealous  devotion  of  their  contemporaries 
who  failed  to  understand  that  the  chief  interests  of  Yahweh 
centred  in  other  things;  this  prophet  resents  an  indifference  on 
the  part  of  the  priests  which  is  an  insult  to  Yahweh. — 11.  For 

•  So  Marti,  Now.",  Siev..  t  So  e.  g.  Hesselberg,  Hd..  I  So  Jer.,  Grotius,  Pu.. 


30  MALACHI 

from  the  rising  of  the  sun  even  to  its  setting,  my  nmne  is  great  among 
the  nations]  The  connection  between  this  verse  and  the  pre- 
ceding is  not  obvious.  But  probably  the  thought  is  that  Yahweh 
is  not  dependent  upon  the  worshippers  in  Jerusalem  for  a  right 
recognition  of  his  place  and  power.  He  can  refuse  to  receive 
them  for  he  has  other  worshippers  scattered  throughout  the  world. 
The  honour  denied  him  in  his  own  city  is  freely  accorded  him  in 
foreign  cities.  The  exact  significance  of  the  phrase  "great  among 
the  nations"  is  open  to  question.  It  may  mean  that  Yahweh  is 
now  acknowledged  as  God  by  the  nations  at  large,  who  have  be- 
come convinced  of  his  superiority  to  other  gods;  or  that  here 
and  there  among  the  nations  may  be  found  groups  of  people 
who  turn  their  backs  upon  idolatry  and  give  themselves  to  the 
worship  of  the  true  God;  or  that,  even  if  the  Jews  at  home  insult 
Yahweh,  the  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  are  doing  him  honour  among 
the  nations  of  the  earth  where  they  have  been  so  widely  scattered. 
The  first  of  these  alternatives  is  improbable,  because  it  is  so  far 
from  accordance  with  the  facts  of  history.  At  no  time  in  the 
life  of  Israel  could  it  be  said  with  any  shadow  of  verisimilitude 
that  Yahweh  was  universally  acknowledged  as  God.  Nor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  Judaism  ever  had  any  appreciable  suc- 
cess among  the  nations  at  large  in  the  propagation  of  its  faith, 
even  if  any  serious  attempt  at  the  conversion  of  the  nations  could 
be  proven.  Aside  from  a  few  idealists,  like  the  author  of  Jonah, 
the  followers  of  Judaism  seem  to  have  lacked  any  aggressive 
missionary  spirit.  What  religious  approach  was  made  to  the 
nations  was  apologetic  rather  than  missionary.  It  was  merely 
the  response  of  Judaism  to  the  necessity  of  justifying  its  own 
right  and  fitness  to  live  alongside  of  the  religions  of  the  con- 
querors. Consequently,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  number  of  prose- 
lytes was  ever  large  enough  or  widely  enough  distributed  to 
serve  as  a  basis  for  the  statement  of  the  text.  But  at  the  time 
of  this  prophecy,  the  Dispersion  extended  from  Babylonia  and 
Persia  in  the  East  to  Southern  Egypt  in  the  West.  It  is  not  at 
all  unlikely  that  the  standard  of  Yahwism  was  on  the  whole 
higher  among  the  exiles  than  it  was  in  Jerusalem.  This  was 
certainly  true  of  the  Babylonian  exiles  at  least;  cf.  Je.  24'  "• 


I"  31 

Ez.  6*  *•.  The  impetus  to  reform  and  progress  in  Jerusalem 
came  from  without,  not  from  within,  according  to  all  Jewish  tra- 
dition. These  facts  make  the  allusion  to  the  widely  scattered 
Jewish  community  to  be  the  most  probable  interpretation  of 
the  prophet's  words.  The  view  that  this  statement  reflects  the 
author's  conviction  that  the  gods  of  the  heathen  were  only  so 
many  different  names  for  the  one  great  God  and  that  the  nations 
were  therefore  in  reality  worshipping  Yahweh  finds  many  sup- 
porters.* But  against  this  is  the  following  statement  that  incense 
is  offered  to  Yahweh's  name.  Moreover,  the  emphasis  in  Malachi 
upon  ritualism  and  its  attitude  toward  mixed  marriages  militate 
strongly  against  the  hypothesis  that  its  author  could  have  taken 
so  charitable  and  sympathetic  a  view  of  paganism.  Still  another 
view  commonly  heldf  is  that  the  author  refers  to  the  Messianic 
future  when  the  nations  will  all  have  been  brought  to  acknowl- 
edge Yahweh  as  Lord.  But  the  contrast  between  the  Jews  and 
the  nations  is  more  natural  when  applied  to  the  pagan  world  that 
now  is  than  as  between  Judaism  in  the  present  and  paganism 
in  the  future.  There  is  no  differentiation  in  form  between  v.  " 
and  V.  12  such  as  we  should  expect  did  they  refer  to  different  dis- 
pensations. The  presumption  of  the  grammar  is  that  they  both 
refer  to  the  same  age  and,  in  v.  ^2,  it  is  unmistakably  the  present. 
— And  in  every  place,  smoke  is  made  to  arise  to  my  name,  and  a 
pure  offering]  Throughout  the  heathen  world,  the  sacrifices  are 
being  brought  to  Yahweh  in  accordance  with  all  the  requirements 
of  the  ritual.  The  usual  interpretation  of  this  has  been  to  the 
effect  that  the  prophet  refers  to  the  worship  of  Yahweh  by  the 
heathen  peoples,  whose  sacrifices  were  "pure"  because  not  sub- 
ject to  the  same  rigid  requirements  as  those  in  Jerusalem;  or 
that  he  uses  the  word  "offering"  in  a  figurative  sense,  meaning 
thereby  the  prayer  and  praise  offered  to  Yahweh  by  the  non- 
Jewish  world.  Others,  holding  similar  views  as  to  the  meaning, 
have  made  the  statement  apply  to  the  coming  Messianic  age,t 
not  to  actually  existing  conditions.     Sacrifices,  on  the  part  of 

*  So  e.  g.  Hi.,  We.,  Torrey,  Now.,  Marti. 

t  So  e.  g.  Justin,  Irenseus.  Theodoret,  Augustine,  Reinke,  AV.,  Schegg,  Pu.,  van  H.,  Isop.. 
t  Note  especially  the  v-iew  of  Isop.  that  the  prophet  had  in  mind  the  Holy  Eucharist  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 


32  MALACHI 

Jews  at  least,  anywhere  except  at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  have 
been  until  recently  regarded  as  placed  under  the  ban  by  the  Deu- 
teronomic  law  and  therefore  not  to  be  designated  as  a  "pure  offer- 
ing." But  the  discovery  of  the  Elephantine  pap3ai  has  changed 
all  this.  The  colonists  in  Egypt  evidently  were  conscious  of  no 
irregularity  in  the  erection  of  a  shrine  to  Yahweh  on  Egyptian 
soil  and  in  the  offering  of  sacrifices  to  Yahweh  therein.*  Nor  is 
it  altogether  certain  that  the  Jerusalem  hierarchy  condemned 
their  action;  the  failure  of  the  priests  to  respond  to  the  request 
of  the  colonists  for  aid  may  well  have  been  due  to  other  reasons 
than  disapproval  of  the  enterprise  upon  ritualistic  grounds.  In- 
ability to  render  aid,  or  fear  of  arousing  the  hostility  of  the  Per- 
sian officials  may  have  caused  the  disappointment  to  their  dis- 
tant fellow-countrymen.  In  any  case,  it  is  quite  evident  that 
the  writer  of  this  prophecy  may  have  shared  the  views  of  the 
colonists  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  sacrificial  worship  upon  foreign 
soil  and  may  have  had  such  shrines  as  that  at  Elephantine  in 
mind  when  he  wrote. f  It  is  by  no  means  clear  that  the  Deu- 
teronomic  legislators  intended  to  condemn  sanctuaries  on  for- 
eign soil.  Their  purpose  was  to  eliminate  impurity  from  the 
worship  of  Judah  by  centralising  it  in  Jerusalem  under  rigid 
supervision.  They  were  not  legislating  for  exiles,  if  indeed  they 
so  much  as  contemplated  the  possibility  of  a  general  Diaspora. 
The  Babylonian  exile  introduced  a  new  set  of  conditions  into 
the  political  and  the  religious  world  of  Judaism.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  further  development  of  the  ritual  was  along  narrow  and 
exclusive  lines;  but  it  was  not  carried  through  without  a  fierce 
struggle.  Many  devout  Jews  aligned  themselves  with  the  more 
liberal  tendencies  of  the  times,  as  evidenced  by  the  books  of 
Jonah  and  Ruth.  Probably  Malachi  is  to  be  placed  in  the  same 
class  in  so  far,  at  least,  as  the  localisation  of  the  ritual  is  con- 

•  There  is  no  necessity  for  supposing  that  the  action  of  these  colonists  in  erecting  a  temple 
on  foreign  soil  was  unique.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  similar  shrines  were  erected  in  other 
Jewish  centres.  The  later  temple  at  Hcliopolis  is  a  case  in  point.  The  same  longings  and 
needs  that  caused  the  building  of  the  temple  at  Elephantine  existed  in  many  other  regions 
and  may  easily  have  resulted  in  similar  action.  So  also  Torrey,  £zra  6'/i«/«w,  315^..  I'or 
a  contrary  view,  ti.  W.  R.  Arnold,  JBL.,  XXXI  (loi,^),  31^^.. 

t  So  also  O.  C.  Whitehouse,  in  Transadions  of  Third  International  Congress  for  the  History 
of  Religions,!  (1Q0&),  284;  J.  W.Rolhste'm,  J  iiden  uiul  Santarilaner  (1908),  77/.;  Du.ZAW. 
XXXI  (1911),  179/.. 


I"-"  33 

cerned. — For  great  is  my  name  among  the  nations,  says  Yahweh 
oj  hosts]  There  is  some  justification,  aside  from  the  question  of 
metre,  for  holding  this  to  be  a  gloss,*  since  it  but  repeats  what 
has  already  been  said.  Yet  this  is  not  a  necessary  conclusion; 
for  coming,  as  it  does,  immediately  before  v.  ^-,  it  furnishes  an 
antecedent  near  at  hand  for  the  pronoun  "it"  in  the  latter,  be- 
sides bringing  the  magnification  of  Yahweh  among  the  nations 
into  immediate  contrast  with  the  contrary  conduct  of  Israel. — 
12.  But  you  are  profaning  it]  i.  e.  treating  the  name  of  Yahweh, 
which  is  practically  identical  with  Yahweh  himself,  as  though 
it  were  not  holy. — When  you  5ot]  i.  e.  think  in  your  hearts,  or 
say  by  your  actions. — The  table  of  the  Lord  is  defiled  and  its  food 
despicable]  Cf.  v.  ^  where  the  same  language  is  employed  in  part.f 
The  basis  for  the  prophet's  interpretation  of  their  attitude  to- 
ward Yahweh's  sacrifices  is  furnished  by  vv.  ^-  ^^  2^-^.  It  seems 
wholly  unjustifiable  to  interpret  this  as  a  lament  on  the  part  of 
the  priests  to  the  effect  that  their  work  is  hea\y  and  their  pay 
light,!  the  "food"  being  the  portion  of  the  sacrifice  which  fell 
to  the  priest.  Had  this  been  the  thought,  the  priests  would 
hardly  have  been  represented  as  careless  and  indifferent  regarding 
the  quality  of  the  sacrificial  animals.  It  would  have  been  a 
matter  of  personal  interest  to  them  that  these  should  be  sound 
and  perfect. — 13.  And  when  you  say,  Behold,  what  a  weariness!] 
The  care  of  the  ritual  and  the  bringing  of  the  offerings  have  be- 
come a  burden  to  them.  They  no  longer  do  it  out  of  gratitude 
and  devotion,  but  as  a  matter  of  hard  necessity  from  which  they 
would  escape  if  they  could.  They  have  allowed  it  to  become  dull 
routine  upon  their  hands, — a  danger  to  which  the  ministers  of 
highly  ritualistic  cults  are  always  peculiarly  liable. — Afui  you 
esteem  me  lightly]  Lit.,  "You  snort  (or  sniff)  at  me."  HI  reads 
"at  it";  but  this  is  a  scribal  correction  made  for  the  purpose  of 
removing  an  expression  thought  to  reflect  dishonour  upon  Yah- 
weh {v.  i.). — Says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  is  the  ninth  aflirma- 
tion  of  the  authority  of  Yahweh  in  support  of  the  prophet's 
utterance;    but  the  frequency  of  the  phrase  is  not  a  suflficient 

*  Cf.  A,  Marti,  Siev.,  Now.^. 

t  Hence  Marti  eliminates  «''  as  a  gloss.    But  this  needs  stronger  support  than  the  need  of 
the  "poetic"  structure. 
X  So  e.  g.  Rosemn.,  Reinke. 


34  MALACHI 

ground  for  rejecting  it.* — And  you  bring  the  salvage  and  the  lame 
and  the  sick]  Repeated  from  v.  *,  with  a  change  in  the  first  word. 
Some  would  correct  this  word  to  agree  with  v. «;  but  this  is  un- 
necessary. The  "salvage"  is  literally,  "that  snatched  away," 
scil.  from  the  jaws  of  wild  beasts  ;t  hence  mangled  and  unfit  for 
sacrifice,  or  even  for  use  as  food;  cf.  Ex.  22^1  Lv.  ly'''. — Yea,  you 
bring  it  as  an  ojfering]  The  verb  is  resumed  after  an  exceptionally 
long  object  has  intervened;  it  is,  therefore,  an  error  to  omit  it. J 
— Can  I  accept  it  at  your  hand?  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  M  omits 
"of  hosts";  but  it  is  the  customary  title  in  Malachi  and  it  is 
read  here  by  (& #.§  The  question  carries  its  answer  with  it;  they 
are  acting  unreasonably. — 14.  But  cursed  be  the  cheat,  in  whose 
flock  there  is  a  male,  yet  he  vows,  and  then  sacrifices  a  damaged  thing 
to  the  Lord]  This  is  a  specific  example  of  the  conduct  of  those 
who  despise  the  altar  of  Yahweh.**  The  nature  of  the  offender's 
deceit  is  indicated  by  the  act  ascribed  to  him.  Though  having 
in  his  possession  an  animal  that  fully  meets  all  the  requirements 
for  sacrifice,  he  nevertheless  pays  his  sacrificial  vows  with  a  blem- 
ished and  therefore  less  valuable  animal,  thus  exhibiting  stingi- 
ness and  deceit  toward  Yahweh  in  one  and  the  same  act.  Some 
interpreters  would  omit  the  phrase  "yet  he  vows";tt  but  this 
leaves  the  charge  weaker.  There  might  be  some  excuse  for  such 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  offender  if  his  sacrifice  were  obligatory ; 
but  this  is  a  case  where  he  has  himself  voluntarily  promised 
Yahweh  a  sacrifice  and  then  grudges  the  fulfilment  of  his  prom- 
ise. Such  an  attitude  is  inexcusable. |t — For  a  great  king  am  /, 
says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  If  such  conduct  toward  an  earthly  king 
be  reprehensible  and  certain  to  arouse  his  anger,  how  much  more 
so  in  the  case  of  the  king  of  kings!  For  the  same  line  of  reason- 
ing, cf.  V.  ^.  For  the  conception  of  Yahweh  as  a  king,  which  is 
exceedingly  frequent  in  post-exilic  writings  in  general  and  in 
the  Psalms  in  particular,  cf.  i  S.  121-  Je.  S^^  lo^*^  Is.  ^^'^'^  43^^  44^ 

*  Contra  Marti,  Siev.,  el  al..  t  So  BDB.,  van  H.,  et  al.. 

t  Contra  Now.,  Marti,  el  al..  5  So  also  Marti,  Siev.,  Bu.,  Isop.. 

•*  The  connection  with  v.  "  is  somewhat  loose;  hence  Du.  makes  v.  "  a  gloss. 

ft  So  Siev.,  Now.^. 

tt  For  a  Babylonian  judgment  upon  similar  conduct,  cf.  the  following  citation  from  the 
Shurpu  series  of  texts  containing  exorcisms:  "Has  he  promised  with  heart  and  mouth  but 
not  kept  it,  by  a  (retained)  gift  despised  the  name  of  his  god,  consecrated  something  but  held 
it  back,  presented  something  .  .  .  but  eaten  it?"  V.  Jeremias,  The  OT.  in  the  Light  of  the 
Ancient  East,  I,  226. 


114-22  35 

Zp.  3^^  Ps.  lo'^  24^-*''  84'  95^. — And  my  name  is  held  in  awe 
among  the  nations]  This  is  a  reiteration  of  the  thought  of  v."; 
but  it  forms  a  fitting  close  to  the  paragraph. 

With  2^  the  thought  changes  again,  being  addressed  specifi- 
cally to  the  priests. — 2\  And  now,  unto  you  is  this  command,  O 
priests]  The  special  command  here  referred  to  is  not  at  once 
discoverable.  There  is  no  express  "  command  "  in  the  immediate 
context.  On  the  other  hand,  the  arraignment  in  the  preceding 
verses  charges  that  the  accused  have  failed  to  honour  Yahweh 
fittingly,  which  is  their  just  and  lawful  service.  Likewise,  in 
the  following  verses  stress  is  laid  upon  the  necessity  of  glorifying 
Yahweh.  Hence,  the  "command"  is  most  easily  explained  as 
the  behest  to  honour  Yahweh,  which  lies  behind  the  whole  con- 
text. On  account  of  the  absence  of  any  explicit  "command" 
in  the  immediate  context,  other  renderings  have  been  offered, 
such  as  "admonition,"  "decision,"  "message,"  and  "warning." 
But  neither  of  these  affords  any  appreciable  advantage,  since 
the  context  does  not  contain  any  one  of  them  explicitly. — 2.  // 
you  do  not  hearken,  and  if  you  do  not  lay  it  to  heart]  Cf.  Is.  57^ 
Dn.  I*.  This  repetition  of  the  idea  in  different  terms  is  after 
the  manner  of  poetic  parallelism  and  serves  to  emphasise  the 
importance  of  the  utterance. — To  give  honour  to  my  name,  says 
Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  is  the  main  function  of  a  priest;  to  fail 
here  is  to  fail  lamentably.  The  preceding  verses  have  made  it 
clear  that  the  kind  of  honour  meant  is  a  due  regard  for  the  proper 
forms  and  other  requirements  "regarding  sacrifices  and  offerings.* 
— Then  I  will  send  the  curse  among  you]  Cf.  3^  4^.    This  is  a  kind 

*  For  the  Babylonian  feeling  concerning  the  necessity  of  honouring  the  gods,  cf.  the  following 
citation  from  the  Shurpu  series  of  incantations,  as  translated  by  Jeremias,  in  The  OT.  in  the 
Light  oj  the  Ancient  East,  I,  228: — 

As  though  no  hbation  had  I  brought  to  my  god, 
Or  at  mealtime  my  goddess  had  not  been  called  upon, 
My  face  not  downcast,  my  footfall  had  not  become  visible; 
(Like  one)  in  whose  mouth  stayed  prayer  and  supplication, 
(With  whom)  the  day  of  god  ceased,  the  festival  fell  out; 
Who  was  careless,  who  attended  not  to  (the  god's)  decrees(?). 
Fear  and  reverence  (for  god)  taught  not  his  people; 
Who  called  not  upon  his  god,  ate  of  his  food. 
Forsook  his  goddess,  a  writing  (?)  brought  her  not; 
He  then,  who  was  honoured,  his  lord  forgot. 
The  name  of  his  mighty  god  pronounced  disparagingly — 
Thus  did  I  appear. 


36  MALACHI 

of  thought  that  is  very  common  in  the  Old  Testament.  Failure 
to  conform  to  the  requirements  of  Yahweh  brings  down  his 
"wrath  upon  the  offender.  Misfortune  and  suffering  are  in  them- 
selves evidences  of  that  wrath.  For  representations  of  disaster 
as  due  to  the  curse  of  God,  cf.  Gn.  3"-  "  5"  8^1  Dt.  2820  30^— 
A  fid  I  will  turn  your  blessing  into  a  curse]  Lit.  "I  will  curse 
your  blessing,"  /.  c.  send  a  curse  upon  and  blast  that  which  you 
count  your  blessing.  In  Ethiopic,  "blessings"  often  means 
"goods"  as  in  310  Is.  65^  Jo.  2"  Gn.  49"  f-  Ps.  21^  84«  Pr.  28^0; 
cf.  Lk.  12^.  This  is  better  than  to  interpret  the  threat  as  apply- 
ing to  the  priestly  benedictions,*  or  specifically  to  the  priestly 
revenues,!  or  in  general  to  the  priestly  privileges.f  For  the  re- 
verse of  this  action  on  Yahweh's  part,  v.  Dt.  23^  Ne.  13-. — Yea, 
indeed,  I  have  cursed  it,  because  you  are  not  laying  it  to  heart]  Cf. 
V.  2«.  The  verb  might  also  be  rendered  as  a  prophetic  perfert, 
"I  will  curse  it."  But  whether  so  taken,  or  taken  as  referring 
to  the  past,  the  whole  sentence  seems  superfluous.  As  referring 
to  the  past  it  interrupts  the  connection  between  the  preceding 
sentence  and  v.  ^,  both  of  which  look  to  the  future.  Furthermore, 
it  blunts  the  edge  of  the  threat,  since  it  reveals  the  fact  that  in- 
stead of  some  new  and  awful  calamity,  which  the  preceding 
verses  seem  to  announce,  there  will  be  nothing  but  a  continua- 
tion of  the  present  distress,  which  they  have  learned  to  endure. 
Not  only  so,  but  it  also  seems  to  take  for  granted  the  failure  of 
the  priests  to  respond  to  Yahweh's  demands,  notwithstanding  his 
threats.  In  connection  with  this  interpretation,  it  is  possible  to 
give  the  latter  part  of  the  sentence  the  rendering  "though  you 
are  not  laying  it  to  heart."  That  is,  the  curse  has  already  fallen, 
but  you  have  failed  to  realise  the  significance  of  the  afflictions 
that  have  befallen  you.  As  referring  to  the  future,  it  unneces- 
sarily repeats  the  substance  of  the  preceding  protasis  and  apodo- 
sis.  It  is,  therefore,  probably  due  to  marginal  annotation. § — 
3.  Behold,  I  am  going  to  hew  of  the  arm  for  you]  Cf.  i  S.  2^^.  IH 
reads,  "rebuke  the  seed  for  you."  But  this  would  be  primarily 
a  punishment  upon  the  farmers,  and  only  through  them  would 

*  So  Ew.,  Ke.,  Schegg,  Knabenbauer,  Or..  t  Hi.. 

}  Now.,  van  H..  §  So  Marti,  Now.",  Siev.,  Kent. 


,3-4 


37 


the  priests  suffer.*  The  reference  to  "faces"  immediately  fol- 
lowing makes  the  reading  "arm"  more  probable.  Besides  this, 
it  has  the  support  of  the  versions.  The  figure  is  a  bold  one  and 
is  used  to  express  forcefully  the  idea  that  the  priestly  arm  here- 
tofore stretched  out  in  blessing  upon  the  people  will  lose  its 
power  and  fail  to  bring  the  desired  results. t — And  I  will  strew 
dung  upon  your  faces]  Thus  rendering  the  priests  unclean  and 
wholly  unfit  for  the  discharge  of  the  priestly  function ;  cf.  Ez.  4^^"'*. 
—The  dung  of  your  feasts]  This  is  probably  an  interpreter's  gloss.J 
The  festal  sacrifices  in  honour  of  Yahweh  will  be  made  by  him 
the  means  of  discrediting  and  disgracing  the  faithless  priesthood. 
— And  I  will  carry  you  away  from  beside  me]  M.  reads,  "And 
he  will  carry  you  away  unto  it."§  But  the  change  of  person  is 
too  abrupt  and  the  "it"  is  too  indefinite.  Hence  the  reading  of 
^,  with  the  first  person,  must  be  considered  as  the  original.  As 
corrected,  the  text  threatens  the  priests  with  removal  from  the 
presence  of  Yahweh,  i.  e.  exile  from  the  holy  city  and  the  tem- 
ple with  which  their  whole  life  is  bound  up. — 4.  And  you  will 
know  that  I  sent  forth  this  law  unto  you]  Their  knowledge  will 
come  through  their  realisation  that  the  fact  of  their  exile  means 
that  Yahweh's  anger  has  been  aroused  against  them  on  account 
of  their  laxness  and  indifference  regarding  the  cultus  for  which 
they  are  held  responsible.  The  "law"  referred  to  is  evidently 
the  same  as  in  v.  ^ — Seeing  that  my  co,venant  was  with  Levi,  says 
Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  indicates  the  reason  for  Yahweh's  having 
laid  this  responsibility  upon  the  priesthood.  The  language  used 
also  permits  a  translation  of  the  clause  as  expressive  of  purpose, 
viz.  "in  order  that  my  covenant  might  be  with  Levi."**  But 
it  is  difficult  to  discover  any  meaning  for  such  a  purpose-clause 
in  this  context.  The  common  method  of  explanation  on  this 
basis  is  to  say  that  the  prophet  refers  to  the  decree  of  punish- 
ment which  has  gone  forth  from  Yahweh  and  is  to  take  the  place 

*  Yet  Or.  interprets  "seed"  of  posterity;  the  priests  are  thus  threatened  with  childlessness. 

t  So  Ew.,  Reinke,  et  al..  Others  interpret  "arm"  of  the  shoulder  of  the  sacrificial  victim, 
which  portion  belonged  to  the  priest;   so  Reuss,  Isop.,  Nestle  {ZAW.  XXIX,  1S4/-)- 

t  So  We.,  Now.,  Wkl.,  Marti,  Siev.. 

§  Cf.  Am.  4',  from  which  Marti  would  derive  this  as  a  gloss  (so  Siev..  Now.''.  Kenti- 
Now.  et  al.  abandon  the  attempt  to  interpret  this  phrase. 

•*  So  e.  g.  ©,  ,Ter.,  Hi.,  Mau.,  van  H.. 


38  MALACHI 

of  the  old  covenant.*  But  a  decree  is  not  a  covenant,  nor  is 
there  any  reason  to  suppose,  in  the  nature  of  the  language  used, 
that  V.  *  refers  to  a  different  time  from  that  alluded  to  in  v.  *, 
which  is  evidently  not  in  the  future,  but  in  the  past.  The  char- 
acter of  the  covenant  with  Levi  to  which  reference  is  made  is 
indicated  in  v.  ^  "Levi"  is  here  best  accounted  for  as  represent- 
ative of  the  priestly  class,  rather  than  as  the  name  of  the  son 
of  Jacob.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  writer  thinks  of  the  priests 
as  "sons  of  Levi"  (cf.  3^)  in  accordance  with  the  standard  of 
Deuteronomy,  rather  than  as  "sons  of  Zadok"  (Ez.  44*^),  or  as 
"sons  of  Aaron,"  the  designation  of  P  (Lv.  8,  21O.  This  points 
to  the  origin  of  Malachi  as  lying  in  the  period  before  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Priestly  Code. — 5 .  My  covenant  was  with  him]  A  re- 
affirmation for  the  sake  of  emphasis.  As  usually  rendered,  these 
words  are  connected  directly  with  the  two  following  in  some  way; 
e.  g.  "my  covenant  was  with  him  (regarding)  life  and  peace," 
or  "my  covenant  was  with  him  (a  covenant  of)  life  and  peace." 
But  the  syntax  of  such  renderings  is  very  difficult  and  the  accen- 
tuation of  M  is  against  them. — Life  and  welfare — /  gave  them  to 
him]  Yahweh  fulfilled  his  side  of  the  covenant.  The  word 
"welfare"  represents  a  complex  of  ideas,  viz.  peace,  quiet,  pro- 
tection, and  health.  Yahweh's  gift  included  life  and  all  that 
makes  life  worth  living.  The  thought  and  phraseology  of  this 
verse  thus  far  at  once  recall  Nu.  2512-  13  (=P),  where  the  cove- 
nant of  Yahweh  is  said  to  have  been  established  with  Phinehaz, 
the  son  of  Aaron.  But  that  is  a  more  specialised  and  advanced 
form  of  the  tradition  than  this  which  extends  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant  in  question  to  the  whole  family  of  Levi. — Fear, 
and  he  feared  me]  "Fear"  is  co-ordinate  with  "life  and  welfare," 
all  three  being  in  reality  objects  of  "gave."  "Fear"  here  is  evi- 
dently not  terror,  but  rather  reverence  and  awe  such  as  kept  the 
priesthood  in  faithful  obedience  to  the  will  of  God  as  expressed 
in  the  ritual  and  the  Torah. — And  before  my  name  he  was  over- 
whelmed with  awe]  The  phrase  "my  name"  is  practically  equiva- 
lent to  "me";  cf.  i^-  "•  "  2^.  The  contrast  between  the  priest- 
hood that  was  and  that  which  now  is  is  being  brought  out  sharply 

•  So  e.  «.  Luther,  Cal.,  Umbreit,  Ke.,  Koh.,  Pres.. 


,5-7 


39 


by  the  prophet.  It  is  doubtful  whether  he  is  referring  to  any 
especial  period  of  the  past.  It  is  probably  but  another  case  of 
indiscriminate  glorification  of  the  past  as  compared  with  the  pres- 
ent. The  prophet  recalls  with  melancholy  regret  "  the  good  old 
times." — 6.  True  instruction  was  in  his  mouth  and  perversity  was 
not  found  upon  his  lips]  i.  e.  he  was  proof  against  bribery  and 
corruption ;  cf.  Dt.  33*  ".  He  gave  the  oracle  of  Yahweh  as  he 
received  it,  giving  justice  to  the  oppressed  and  meting  out  pen- 
alties to  the  oppressor.  But  now  the  judgments  of  the  priestly 
courts  are  bought  and  sold;  cf.  Mi.  3".  The  rendering  "law  of 
truth"  fails  to  represent  aright  the  Hebrew  idiom  {v.  i.).  The 
word  "instruction"  here  refers  neither  to  the  Mosaic  law  nor 
to  any  such  abstract  and  indefinite  thing  as  the  principle  of 
truth.  It  is  rather  the  specific  decision  of  the  priest,  given  in 
cases  that  were  appealed  through  him  to  Yahweh,  the  final  ar- 
biter; cf.  Dt.  17^  "•  19^^ — In  peace  and  uprightness,  he  walked 
with  me]  To  "walk  with  God"  is  to  worship  God.  It  implies 
living  in  full  accord  with  the  divine  will  and  denotes  a  more  inti- 
mate fellowship  with  God  than  that  expressed  by  the  more 
common  phrase  "walk  after";  cf.  Dt.  8"  13^  Je.  7^  2  K.  23^ 
Ho.  ii^o.  It  is  used  of  Enoch  (Gn.  52^-  2")  and  Noah  (Gn.  6^), 
and  of  no  others.  The  term  "peace"  indicates  the  tranquillity 
and  harmony  existing  between  God  and  his  obedient  and  loyal 
priesthood.  The  "  uprightness  "  meant  is  the  reverse  of  the  "  per- 
versity" just  mentioned;  it. is  an  unswerving  moral  integrity. — 
And  many  did  he  turn  from  iniquity]  Cf.  Dn.  12^,  where  great 
reward  is  promised  those  who  "turn  many  to  righteousness." 
In  this  statement,  the  priesthood  is  conceived  of  as  much  more 
than  a  body  of  men  set  for  the  exact  performance  of  the  ritual, 
or  as  men  through  whom  the  will  of  God  is  made  known  as  mes- 
sages are  transmitted  through  a  telephone.  It  is  rather  an 
agency  endowed  with  great  possibilities  as  a  positive  force  for 
instruction  and  reproof  in  righteousness. — 7.  For  the  lips  of  a 
priest  shoidd  treasure  knowledge]  Having  stated  the  nature  of 
the  priestly  service  once  rendered  by  the  former  priesthood,  the 
writer  before  taking  up  directly  the  contrast  afforded  by  the 
priesthood  of  his  own  times  stops  for  a  moment  to  say  that  what 


40  MALACHI 

had  once  been  done  was  but  the  proper  function  of  a  priest. 
There  was  nothing  abnormal  or  extraordinary  in  the  performance; 
the  priesthood  had  but  done  its  duty.  "Knowledge "  is  nowhere 
else  mentioned  in  Malachi.  Evidently  it  connotes  something 
more  than  mere  learning,  or  the  possession  of  a  mass  of  facts, 
however  great.  It  is  here  practically  identical  with  that  wisdom 
the  beginning  of  which  is  the  "fear  of  the  Lord."  It  is  used  in  a 
similar  sense  in  Ho.  41-  ^  6^  On  the  basis  of  the  occurrence  of 
this  word,  G.  A.  Smith  entitles  the  whole  section  "the  priest- 
hood of  knowledge,"  and  writes  forceful  words  concerning  the 
necessity  of  an  intellectual  type  of  ministers.  True  as  all  this 
is,  it  is  hardly  the  thought  of  this  prophet.  Intellectualism  and 
search  for  truth  in  the  abstract  were  outside  the  pale  of  his 
interest.  His  concern  was  wholly  within  the  field  of  practical 
religion  and  morality. — And  instruction  should  they  seek  at  his 
mouth]  The  word  "instruction"  includes  the  oracle  of  Yahweh 
as  in  V.  ^,  and  also  the  teaching  as  to  the  correct  discharge  of 
ritualistic  obligations. — For  the  messenger  of  Yahweh  of  hosts  is 
he]  As  the  spokesman  of  Yahweh,  people  have  a  right  to  expect 
truth  and  justice  from  the  priest.  Unfaithfulness  to  such  a  re- 
sponsibility is  a  most  heinous  offence.  This  is  the  only  case  in 
which  this  title  is  applied  to  the  priest.  In  earlier  writings  it 
designates  the  angel  sent  by  Yahweh  to  communicate  his  will 
to  men;  e.  g.  Gn.  16^  "•  Nu.  22^2  «•  Ju.  5^'  13"  *•.  Apparently, 
the  claim  is  that  Yahweh  who  once  spoke  to  his  people  through 
a  specially  appointed  angel  now  has  chosen  the  priesthood  to 
perform  that  function.  This  is  a  conception  of  the  importance 
and  dignity  of  the  priesthood  that  is  unsurpassed,  if  it  be  even 
equalled,  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  renders  the  work 
of  the  prophet  superfluous.  The  priestly  Torah  leaves  no  room 
or  need  even  for  angelic  teachers.  Cf.  Hg.  i",  where  the  title 
"angel  of  Yahweh"  is  applied  to  a  prophet,  viz.  Haggai  himself. 
The  writer  now  proceeds  to  show  how  far  the  priesthood  has 
fallen  from  this  high  ideal. — 8.  But  you  have  turned  aside  from 
the  way]  i.  e.  the  way  of  Yahweh;  cf.  Ex.  32*  Dt.  9'^  's  ii^s  3129 
Ju.  2*'  I  S.  I22'"-. — You  have  caused  many  to  stumble  on  account  of 
the  instruction]  The  priests  have  perverted  the  oracle  of  Yahweh 


,8-9 


41 


and  so  caused  offence  to  those  who  have  been  thus  wronged. 
The  priestly  Torah  which  should  guide  men  in  the  way  of  Yahweh 
has  been  so  used  as  to  turn  them  away  from  Yahweh.  If  the 
priest  of  God  be  unfaithful,  it  is  inevitable  that  the  common 
people  lose  faith  not  only  in  the  priest,  but  also  in  his  God. — 
You  have  violated  the  covenant  of  Levi,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  Cf. 
w.  *■  *.  The  priests  have  failed  to  fulfil  their  part  of  the  covenant ; 
they  have  broken  their  promise;  they  have  been  false  to  their 
vows. — 9.  And  so  I  have  made  you  despised  and  low  before  all  the 
people]  This  is  Yahweh's  punishment  of  the  priesthood  for  its 
faithlessness.  The  versions  read  "peoples";  but  this  involves 
making  the  prophet  address  the  nation  and  refer  to  the  fallen 
fortunes  of  Judah.  The  entire  context  requires  that  the  address 
be  to  the  priesthood  and  the  reference  to  the  loss  of  prestige 
with  the  people  which  it  has  already  suffered. — Inasmuch  as  you 
are  not  keeping  my  ways,  hut  are  showing  partiality  through  the 
oracle]  Yahweh  is  a  righteous  God,  dispensing  justice  without 
fear  or  favour;  cf.  2  Ch.  ig^  The  priests,  in  that  they  allow  their 
decisions  to  be  influenced  by  considerations  of  place  and  power, 
or  even  by  gifts  and  bribes,  are  not  walking  in  Yahweh's  ways; 
cf.  Ho.  14^  Ps.  145^^.  Besides  this,  the  connivance  of  the  priests 
with  the  kind  of  deceit  exposed  in  i^-  "  is  doubtless  included  in 
the  charge  here. 

The  integrity  of  i«-2'  has  been  seriously  called  in  question  at  only 
one  point.  Boh.,  followed  by  Marti,  Siev.  and  Now.*^,  would  omit  2'  as 
an  interpolation.  The  grounds  alleged  in  support  of  this  contention  are 
(i)  that  V. '  dulls  the  sharp  contrast  between  v. '  and  v.  *  by  separating 
them;  (2)  that  it  is  superfluous  after  v.  s;  (3)  that  Yahweh  is  here 
spoken  of,  whereas  in  vv.  «•*  he  is  himself  the  speaker;  and  (4)  that  the 
conception  of  the  '">  InSd  is  different  here  from  that  represented  else- 
where in  the  book,  e.  g.  3*.  But  v. '  is  in  close  connection  with  the 
thought  of  V. «  and  the  contrast  between  v. '  and  v.  *  suffers  relatively 
little  by  comparison  with  that  between  v.  ^  and  v. '.  Moreover,  there 
is  a  direct  connection  between  v. '  and  v. ',  the  latter  pointing  out  that 
the  priests  do  just  the  opposite  of  that  which  has  been  stated  as  their 
duty  in  the  former.  It  is  no  uncommon  thing  for  a  prophet  to  inter- 
mingle statements  in  the  third  person  with  those  in  the  first  person, 
when  he  is  speaking  in  the  name  of  Yahweh;  v.  i'-  "  3'-  *■  **.  It  is  quite 
true  that  the  representation  of  the  priesthood  as  itself  the  '">  InSd  is 


42  MALACHI 

not  found  elsewhere  in  Mai.;  but  neither  is  it  found  anywhere  else  in 
the  OT..  It  is  a  conception  of  the  priesthood  which  is,  to  say  the  least, 
as  easily  explicable  upon  the  lips  of  the  author  of  Mai.  as  it  would  be 
coming  from  any  other  source.  His  high  regard  for  the  priesthood  as 
an  invaluable  institution  is  sufficiently  well  attested  by  the  indignation 
that  stirs  him  as  he  contemplates  the  indifference  and  disloyalty  of 
the  priesthood  of  his  own  day.  Hence,  the  case  against  2'  seems  too 
weak  to  carry  conviction. 

1\  laD^]  Impf.  expressing  customary  action;  not  a  jussive  ="  should 
honour"  {contra  Ko.,  ei  al.). — 3n]  Rd.  v3n,  with  0  A  (il^°-  Eth.;  so  Bu., 
Hal.,  Now.'^.— -i3>'i]  Add  x-\'\  with  (&^  '■  •  HP.  22,  36, 51, 62,  68,  86  mg., 
QI,  Eth.,  Arm.;  so  Jer.,  Oort,  Smend,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Siev.,  Bu.,  Dr., 
Or.,  van  H.,  Hal.,  Du.^'°-. — rnN]  Cf.  foil.  a'J^s;  pi.  of  majesty;  cf. 
Ges.  ^^'"i;  cf.  also  Gn.  39'  42"  Dt,  10'^  2  S.  n«  Is.  19*  Ho.  12"  Ps. 
136'. — •'Jn]  Pausal  form;  Ges.  ^^ '='<'. — 22^]  (S  v/ieis,  in  apposition  with 
foil,  "priests." — amDNi]  Does  not  continue  '•ci:'  "rn,  in  the  sense  "you 
who  despise  my  name  and  say";  but  introduces  the  priests'  question, 
"yet  ye  say,"  etc.. — 7.  D^it^jc]  Cf.  Ges.  ^^"^%  on  omission  of  subject. 
Equivalent  to  an  explanatory  clause  with  "^'i^i*  =  "in  that  ye,"  etc.. — 
Snjc]  Snj  =  Sj,u  in  the  later  writings,  e.  g.  Is.  59'  Ezr.  2". — onncNi] 
(gn  mg.  xaj  etvare,  originally  under  obelus. — iuVnj]  Rd.  imj'7!<J,  with  (6 
■^Xuryi^ffafiev  airrovs  and  JF;  so  Gr.,  Torrey,  Marti,  van  H.,  Now.*^, 
Du.^'°-,  Kent. — ntaj]  (g^A  ■fiXia-yijixivt].  (g><QY  Held,  i^ovdevu/x^vr];  so  HP. 
22,  36,  42,  49,  51,  95,  130,  185,  198,  233,  238,  240,  311  and  g»"  (C""- 
Arm..  ?I  benedicta. — Nin]  (^'^'^  adds,  'cat  to.  iiriri6^iJ.eva  i^ovdevilxrare-^ 
so  H,  .\rm..  <S^  "■  ^  PptbfiaTa  i^ovS^vuivTai.  (B^Q  "e'''-,  HP.  26,  36,  40,  49, 
79,  86  mg.,  106,  198,  233  and  <E^°-,  Pptifiara  iiovSevdfieva.  &"  marks 
the  addition  with  an  obelus.  Jer.  explains  it  as  borrowed  from  i'% — 
8.  nSni  noo  ,"My]  Anarthrous,  because  wholly  indefinite,  viz.  "any 
blind,"  etc.. — innoS]  This  official  probably  was  a  Jew,  though  it  is  by 
no  means  certain.  The  only  persons  by  whom  we  know  the  title 
"governor  of  Judah"  to  have  been  borne  are  Zcrubbabel  (Hg.  i'>« 
2'-"),  Nehemiah  (Ne.  5"'"  12-^),  and  Bagoas  (Sachau's  Elephantine 
Papyri,  I,  i;  cf.  I,  29).  That  Nehemiah  had  had  several  predecessors 
is  made  certain  by  Ne.  5'* ' .  He  himself  seems  to  have  held  a  somewhat 
exceptional  position,  being  designated  as  "governor  in  Judah"  and 
having  been  appointed  for  a  definite  period  (Ne.  2').  It  would  seem 
that  at  his  time  Judah  was  normally  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  gov- 
ernor of  Samaria,  which  so  far  as  Judah  was  concerned  was  set  aside 
in  favour  of  Nehemiah  while  the  latter  was  in  Jerusalem.  In  the  time 
of  Bagoas  (411-407  B.C.),  Judah  and  Samaria  were  small  districts,  each 
under  its  own  'd,  who  was  probably  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ruler 
of  the  great  trans-Euphrates  province  {cf.  Ezr.  5'  8«Ne.  2'-  '  3'). — l^n^n] 
Rd.  insn^n,  with  (6^  "■ »  AO,  HP.  86,  233,  A,  (£.^°-,  and  H;  so  We.,  Now., 


Marti,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Siev.,  van  H.,  Isop.,  Du7'°:  (S^  om.  sf..— 9.  "^n]  (g 
ToO  OeoO  v/iQv. — ujhm]  (^'^  /cot  deT^dijTe  avToG\  to  which  (^'^'^•^^  adds  tva 
eXe^trrj  vfids  (so  also  HP.  22,  36,  51,  <il^°-,  H).  Bu.  iJJn''),  and  tr.  to  foil. 
D^jD.  Hal.  a.3^n''n.  Siev.  inijnai.  Isop.  ij:nnni. — a^i^c]  Bu.  'd  ■•;. — 
N8"n]  (gAY  =  ^.jj;xn;  so  A,  Eth.,  01^°-,  Arm..  But  (g^*  XiJ^'/'oi'Te  (CS^'  =■»•  <=.  b 
=  o/«n). — aac]  Treated  by  Hi.  et  al.  as  a  partitive  }c  =  "from  among 
you";  by  Ke.,  Koh.  et  al.  as  causal  =  "on  your  account";  while 
Hd.,  We.,  Now.,  el  al.  regard  B'JD  ass  as  a  slightly  stronger  expression 
than  03^:d,  viz.  "will  he  accept  faces  of  any  of  you?"  This  latter  view 
seems  the  best. — 3'Jd]  (S  B  =  ds'jd. — 10.  ^c]  (B  =  '•o,  confusing  c  and 
o;  V.  note  on  Mi.  i-  in  ICC.  For  other  cases  of  a  'o  clause  expressing 
an  optative  idea,  even  with  '0  separated  from  its  impf.  by  intervening 
words,  V.  Is.  4223  Ps.  107"  Je.  9"  Ho.  14'"  Ps.  89"  Jb.  13"  41=;  cf. 
Ges. 'J^isia, — 333]  (g  =  against  you,  connecting  it  with  -ijd\ — -ijdm]  CS 
ffvvK\ei<T6^a-ovTai. — D'-nSn]  Dual,  for  the  two  leaves  of  the  door.  On 
form, 'J.  Ges.  ^^  "■>.— sSi]  H  om.  n^.— n-.xr]  U  incendat.  (&^'^^,  HP.  62, 
86,  147,  ava^perai;  but  (S"^'''-  g>"  A  QI^°-,  Arm.,  HP.  22,  26,  36,  40,  42, 
49,  51,  68,  95,  106,  130,  185,  228,  233,  238,  310,  311,  dydi/'aTe.— nisax] 
1C  om.;  so  Now."^,  Siev.. — 11.  '^nj]  (g  5€56^a(rTai.— Dips]  GASm.  in- 
terprets as  =  "sanctuary";  cf.  Zp.  2"  and  Ar.  makdm.  But  the  con- 
text here  seems  to  militate  somewhat  against  so  restricted  a  sense. — 
Tjpc]  H  sacrificaiur .  (&  dv/xiafia.  Lagrange  (iiB. '06,  p.  80), -10,7?;  so 
Siev.(?),  van  H.,  Hal.,  Bu.(?).  Now.  "lop?.  Du^'°-  reads  this  and  the 
foil,  word  as  u'jp  n-ibp.  It  is  better  taken  as  a  prtc.  Hophal  =  "smoke 
is  made  to  arise,"  than  as  a  dw.  noun;  cf.  Ges.  ^^  '='  »>. — rjc]  Om.  as  a 
gloss  on  the  rare  form  -\opc;  so  We.,  Now.,  Marti.  (S  irpocraytTai.  (&^ 
irpoa-aydyeTf.  ^  U,  with  ir  mss.  of  Kenn.,  C'j::i;  so  DHM.,  Isop.. — 
min-j  nmci]  Eth.  adds  "to  my  holy  name."  A  om.;  so  DHM..  We. 
om.  1  with  &,  13  mss.  of  Kenn.  and  2  of  de  R.;  so  Now.,  Isop.. — niN3x] 
C  om.,  but  adds  et  sacrijlcium  acceptiim  non  habebo  ex  ntajiibus  vestris. 
— 12.  •'J-i.n]  Marti,  r\)7\\ — Snjc]  Torrey  questions  the  right  of  'c  to  a 
place  in  this  verse  and  suspects  considerable  confusion  between  vv. ' 
and  •=.  Du.^'°-  vnj?. — Nin]  Siev.  om.. — nraj  n'ji]  Rd.  nnj>,  omitting 
^2>i  as  dittog.,  with  &  and  apparently  ul;  so  WRS.  (o^"-"^'  ""),  We., 
GASm.,  Now.,  Marti,  Oort,  Siev.,  Isop.,  Kent.  (&  Kal  to.  e-iriTidineva 
i^ovbivuvTCLi  if^^"-'-  =  evuiTai).  B  et  quod  super ponitur  conlemptibile  est. 
Hal.  ntaj  idjv  Bu.  nraj  nnaici.  Du.''™-  ^laj  3^:1.  3'j  occurs  only  here 
and  in  Is.  57",  where  Kt.  reads  2^:  and  the  text  is  by  no  means  certain. 
The  meaning  required  there  is  "  fruit"  {scil.  of  the  Hps)  and  that  is  in 
keeping  with  the  meaning  of  the  vb.  au,  "to  grow."  But  any  such 
meaning  is  inappropriate  here,  since  the  gifts  laid  upon  the  table  of 
''  can  hardly  be  spoken  of  as  the  fruit  or  product  of  that  table.  Hence 
the  probability  of  the  origin  of  the  word  here  through  error. — i'^;n]  H 
cutn  igne  qui  illud  devoral,  a  free  rendering  of  the  form  pointed  as  a 
prtc,  viz.  iSas.    Van  H.  om.  as  a  gloss  on  u^j. — 13.  omaNi]  Pf.  with 


44  MALACHI 

waw  consecutive  continuing  the  inf.  cstr.  D3^cn3. — ■iN'^ns]  =  'n-nr;  cf. 
'-\2rV,  I  Ch.  IS";  njc,  Ex.  4*;  D^Sc,  Is.  3";  '1=';',  2  Ch.  30';  jjn^;  and 
onn,  Ez.  8*.  C/.  Ges.  ^^ '"  "=•  " ".  (8  ^f  KUKoiradlas  i(TTLv=  nN?nr;  so  &  13  (F. 
We.  objects  to  '"^nn  on  the  ground  that  njn  (Q»  &  =  njn)  cannot  pre- 
cede n^,  which  must  hold  first  place  in  the  sentence;  but  cf.  3iJ  no  ."lin, 
Ps.  133'.  Hal.  Hvs'i'ri  Nin;  cf.  Ez.  24*- "• ». — inis  onnoni]  Rd.  ''H'^K  'm, 
with  &  QI^°-  A,  Arm.,  Eth.;  so  also  Jer.,  Ra.,  Rosenm.,  Gr.,  Ginsburg, 
Now.,  Marti,  Siev.,  Isop..  It  is  onpiD  jipn.  <&  kclI  i^ecpiff-qffa  ai/rd  = 
oniN  'nnoni.  ^^  i^e(pvcn^(TaT€.  Bu.  'n  03.73n:.  The  Hiph.  of  ns:  oc- 
curs only  here  and  in  Jb.  31".  In  the  Qal,  it  means  "to  blow  into" 
(or  "upon").  Here  it  evidently  denotes  some  act  expressive  of  con- 
tempt and  scorn,  and  in  Jb.  31"  something  equivalent  to  "oppress" 
or  "crush,"  with  li'DJ  as  object.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  interpret  the 
Hiph.  here  and  the  Qal  in  Hg.  i'  in  precisely  the  same  way.  Nor  is  any- 
thing gained  by  Now.'s  proposal  to  connect  it  with  ■/  ni2,  in  which 
case  the  form  would  be  somewhat  irregular. — '^lu]  Rd.  with  van  H. 
and  Isop.,  'jn  tn.  These  three  additional  letters  are  called  for  by 
the  fact  that  the  two  co-ordinate  words  have  them.  Their  disap- 
pearance was  caused  by  their  close  similarity  to  the  last  letters  of  the 
preceding  word.  We.,  on  the  basis  of  v.  *,  corrects  to  iij-'n  -pn;  so  also 
Now.,  Marti,  Siev.,  Hal.,  Bu.,  Kent.  Chajes,  in  Ciornale  d.  Socida 
Asiatica  Ital.,  XIX,  178,  suggests  Sru  =  "  the  young  of  birds"  (Dt. 
32")-  Gr.  and  Du.'''^"-,  Snjs.  The  usual  word  for  a  thing  torn  by  beasts 
is  HDTip  (Ex.  22'"  Lv.  i7'0-  '•>  hS'S  therefore  been  interpreted  by  some 
(e.  g.  Rosenm.)  of  things  stolen  from  their  rightful  owner.  But  the  two 
words  co-ordinate  with  it  militate  against  any  such  sense  here,  as  does 
also  the  corresponding  series  in  v.  ^.  Van  H.  cites  in  support  of  the 
meaning  here  adopted  the  analogy  of  the  Ar.  ga::ila  =  "was  injured" 
and  'agzal  =  iujiired  (one),  used  in  speaking  of  an  animal.  But  these 
terms  are  applied  specifically  to  a  camel  whose  withers  have  been  galled 
by  the  saddle;  hence  they  furnish  little  support  for  the  meaning  "torn 
by  wild  beasts"  or  "snatched  away  from  wild  beasts."  The  context  is 
the  strongest  argument  in  its  behalf. — nnj::n  ps  DPNani]  Rd.  n.iN  'm 
■nnn,  with  We.;  so  DHM.,  Bu.,  Isop.,  van  H.,  Hal..  Siev.  and  Kent 
om.  the  whole  phrase.  Now.  om.  n  n.s  Dn^ani,  as  due  to  dittog.;  while 
Marti  explains  it  as  a  misplaced  marginal  correction  of  the  first  Drxani, 
intended  to  show  that  n  pn  should  be  inserted  after  it. — 14.  '?3ij]  <S  5s 
^v  SvvaTbi.  U  dolosus.  Elsewhere  found  only  in  Gn.  37"  Nu.  25"  Ps. 
105-";  but  these  passages  with  the  Assy,  and  Aram,  usage  of  the  same 
root,  make  certain  the  general  meaning  "cunning,"  "skilful,"  "de- 
ceitful."— B"i]  Bu.  om.  1. — TIJ1]  (B  Kal  evxT)  avroO  iir  ai)T(J5;  hence 
G.\Sm.,  n-i j)  (so  Bu.,  Isop.  (?)) ;  but  (&  may  easily  be  a  rendering  accord- 
ing to  sense.  Now."^  suggests  the  omission  of  this  word.  But  it  is 
easily  accounted  for  as  a  part  of  the  original  text.  The  words  'ui  cm 
define  ':'dij  and  are  themselves  in  the  nature  of  a  conditional  clause,  of 


■13_o3 


45 


which  mji  .  .   .  tyi  constitutes  the  protasis,  and  nan  the  apodosis.— 
nn-fr]  Pointed  thus  as  masc.  (c/.  Lv.  22")  by  Baer,   Ginsburg,  and 
Kittd.    Many  earlier  scholars  (e.  g.  Hi.,  Mau.)  pointed  as  a  fern.,  viz. 
nnra  =  nrini:':^,  and  found  here  a  contrast  with  i3t,  "a  male."    But 
the  fern,  form  does  not  occur;   nor  were  female  animals  excluded  from 
sacrifice  in  general,  though  they  were  not  acceptable  for  certain  specific 
offerings;   cf.  Ex.  12^  Lv.  i'  3'  a''  5"  i65-6— 'Jix^]  Many  mss.  nm^S; 
so  Hd.,  Marti,  Siev.. — 'x  nin>  tin]  Omitted  as  later  addition  by  Marti, 
Now.i^,  Siev..— s-iu]  CS  iTrtcpavh.    B  horrihile.—2\  ^ci'^  11:13  nnS]  Siev. 
tr.  to  follow  a'':n3n  in  v.  >;  but  it  is  hardly  suitable  as  a  definition  of 
nixcn,  and  fits  much  better  where  it  is  in  il.— 33\ni3-i3]  Rd.  33.7513,  with 
<g  and  in  agreement  with  the  foil.  sf.  in  sg.;  so  Marti,  Now.'^,  Bu.,  van 
H.,  Isop.,  Du.P™-.— 1^-l1■'S  DJi]  ^  om.;  so  Eth.,  A.    We.  suggests  3J1 
nn's;  so  Now..    (S^^^  ©"''•  A,  Eth.,  Arm.  add  Kai  Siao-zceSdo-w  t7)v  ev\o- 
ylav  viiuv  Kal  ovk  effrai  ev  vfuv.    g>"  puts  this  addition  before  'ui  OJ1  and 
obelises  Kai  ovk  Icttoi  ev  v/mv.    (^^  obelises  the  entire  addition  and 
notes  in  the  margin  its  absence  from  the  Heb..    It  seems  to  be  a  clear 
case  of  verbose  expansion  in  (g.— 3.  n>'j]  Rd.  pj,  with  We.;  so  Now., 
Oort,  Marti,  Dr.,  Bu.,  Siev.,  van  H.,  Du.^"-,  Kent.     Cf.  <S  d<popl^o,  = 
j?iJ.    "B  projiciam.    Aq.,'2.  iir it ifiQ.    Wkl.  >n);  so  Isop..    np  is  usually 
followed  by  ?;   but  lacks  it  here  and  in  Ps.  9=  68"  ii9=>.    The  meaning 
it  yields  is  not  satisfactory  in  this  context;   v.  s..    Nor  is  any  material 
advantage  gained  by  changing  to  ;ij.— dd"']  Dat.  incommodL—y-^ir^]  Rd. 
p.^n,  with  (S  rbv  (S/xo",  "B  brachiiim,  and  Aq.;  so  Houb.,  Mich.,  Eichhorn, 
New.,  Ew.,  Schegg,  Reinke,  Koh.,  Ke.,  We.,  Now.,  Oort,  Marti,  Dr., 
Bu.,  Siev.,  van  H.,  Isop.,  Du.?"-,  Kent,  et  al..    Cf.  i  S.  2",  for  the 
same   figure.     Hi.   nin.     Wkl.   i;7iyn.— a-io]  H   om..    «   ^Pvffrpov  = 
"stomach."     Aq.,  S  9  Koirpov.    Wkl.  J.nD  =  "long  hair";  cf.  Lv.  10'= 
21"'.     B*:^?  occurs  also  in  Ex.  29"  Lv.  4"  8"  16"  Nu.  19^    In  these 
passages^  it  is  always  listed  as  a  part  of  the  sacrificial  animal  which 
must  be  burned  outside  of  the  camp,  along  with  the  "skin  and  flesh,"  or 
"skin,  flesh  and  blood,"  or  "skin,  flesh,  thigh-bones,  and  inwards." 
It  seems  to  have  been  the  faecal  matter  in  the  intestines,  or  possibly 
the  intestines  themselves.     Isop.,  adopting  the  latter  meaning,  inter- 
prets the  passage  as  a  threat  to  withdraw  the  shoulder,  which  has 
hitherto  been  the  priest's  due,  and  to  give  in  exchange  that  portion 
of  the  animal  which,  being  unclean,  might  not  be  eaten  and  was, 
therefore,  of  no  value.    Cf.  Nestle  {ZAW.  XXIX,  154  /•),  who  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  nji^,  "stomach,"  in  Dt.  18^  is  rendered  by  (5 
&  with  exactly  the  same  words  as  are  used  for  li'iD  here,  and  so  inter- 
prets this  as  a  threat  to  deprive  the  priests  of  the  sacrificial  shoulder 
and  stomach  which  were  assigned  to  them  by  the  Deuteronomic  law 
(183).    But  the  language  employed  does  not  convey  any  suggestion  of 
an  exchange,  nor  is  the  idea  of  withdrawal  very  clear  in  the  expression 
"spread  upon  your  faces."    Then,  too,  if  the  shoulder  and  stomach 


46  MALACHI 

were  withdrawn,  why  should  the  "two  cheeks"  (Dt.  i8')  not  have 
gone  with  them? — 'd  dt:2  *?>]  (6^  om.;  v.  s.. — ao^jn]  &  prefixes  ^•;_. 
Bu.  a^yT  a^'nat. — r^s  bdpm  nu-ji]  Rd.  I'^i;?  DD\nNt':i;  cf.  &  /  u-///  /ajfee 
yozt  away  with  it.  (6  xal  Xrin^pofiai  vnds  ds  t6  oLvrb.  B  el  assumet  vos 
secum.  The  error  of  M  is  due  to  wrong  distribution  of  letters,  dittog., 
haplography,  and  confusion  between  n  and  y  which  is  common.  For 
the  usage  of  Sy^  here  involved,  cj.  Je.  2532*"  Ho.  9'.  Bu.  '•fiND  dd^pnb'ji, 
coming  through  'Ssr.  Now.  vSn  03'rNi:'ji(?);  so  Oort.  Du.^™- 
DS'^Ny'^i.  Hal.  proposes  nSs,  "curse"  for  v'^n. — 4.  inn*?;;']  (^^  "«'<*• 
add  Kvpios,  in  apposition  with  the  subject. — nvn'']  Bu.  m^np;  and 
Du.^™-  'n  Sy;  but  such  changes  seem  superfluous,  since  S  =  "in  view 
of  the  fact  that"  occurs  in  Ex.  12"  Nu.  11"  i  S.  12'  14".  Siev.  m^nS; 
so  Now."^  {cf.  Hb.  3-). — 5.  ipn]  S  om.  sf.. — aiVc'ni  o"nn]  <&  t^s  fw^s 
ical  Tijs  iipi^vrji;  so  B  JT.  The  two  nouns  are  most  easily  handled  as 
prefixed  objects,  which  are  taken  up  again  in  the  foil.  sf.  o__. — aj~Ni] 
(SB  om.  sf.;  so  also  mss.  129  (Kenn.)  and  226  (de  R.).  Hence,  Ew. 
and  Reinke,  ■"'Jnf'i. — ^<^1c]  The  third  object  of  'hni.  It  might  possibly 
be  construed  as  taking  the  place  of  an  inf.  absolute,  with  intensive 
force.  (8  iv  <p6p(fi.  ^^^  om.  ev.  Oort  prefixes  ';'.  Bu.  and  Now.*^, 
■■N^^c.  Isop.  NI^Ov^C?).  Du.'''°-  N-^ici.  Siev.  prefixes  "'nnji. — ■'jnt'm]  (S 
<t)o}eT<r0ai;  but  (gBab  ivid)  naqy  ^dd  M«.  Bu.  >JS-i^Mj  so  Now.i^,  Du.p^"-; 
but  the  context  requires  that  this  verb  state  a  fact  of  history,  rather 
than  a  purpose  or  a  hope.  Furthermore,  Bu.'s  change  here  involves  a 
change  also  in  the  following  verb. — nnj]  05  ffreW^crdai,  with  .vin  as  ob- 
ject. £  proficisci.  B  pavebal;  so  &  ®.  Bu.  and  Now.'^  nn;'.,  or 
nnv..  'i  is  a  form  in  Niph.  pf.  from  nnn  and  must  not  be  confused 
with  the  root  nnj. — 6.  pcn]  A  genitive  after  a  cstr.,  with  the  force  of 
an  adjective;  Ges.  ^^'2' p. — nSij?]  Usually  treated  as  fcm.;  but  here  and 
in  Ez.  28'^,  if  text  be  correct,  taken  as  masc.  Albrecht  (ZAW.  XVT, 
117)  proposes  to  obviate  the  difficulty  by  reading  ]''];^],  since  <6  uses 
aSiKia  for  both  nSiy  and  ]iy  here.  But  there  are  too  many  cases  of 
similar  irregularity  for  suspicion  of  the  text  to  be  justifiable  here;  cf. 
Ko.  Il2^i3«<i  for  a  list  of  them. — ai'^ao]  E  in  pace  linguae. — ivj^nai] 
<&  Karevdivwv. — 7.  nDC'']  A  potential  impf.  expressing  obligation; 
Ges.  ^'> "" '. — 8.  anns"]  Now."^  suggests  'r\  or  that  some  word  has 
been  omitted  from  before  'a*.  But  this  is  a  gratuitous  suggestion,  since 
the  asyndetic  structure  is  established  by  the  foregoing  an'^rjn. — 9.  'I'sS 
ayn]  ^  B  Ul  pi.;  so  12  mss.  of  Kenn.  and  14  of  de  R..  S  here  denotes 
the  agent,  after  the  pass,  ava:,  a  construction  to  which  the  adjective 
'a-'  adjusts  itself  easily. — a'jc]  Torrey  'Jb;  so  Marti,  Dr.(?),  Siev., 
Now.*^,  Kent.  This  yields  the  sense,  "nor  respecting  me"  (scil. 
Yahwch).  But  a'jD  '3  is  always  used  of  the  act  or  attitude  of  one  in 
authority  toward  an  inferior  or  suppliant.  It  is  never  =  "bestow 
honour  upon"  (a  superior)  as  this  reading  would  require. 


47 


§  4-  YAHWEH'S  PROTEST  AGAINST  DIVORCE  AND 
REMARRIAGE  WITH  IDOLATROUS  WOMEN  {2'°-''). 

This  has  been  rightly  called  the  most  difficult  section  of  the 
Book  of  Malachi.  Its  difficulties  do  not,  however,  obscure  the 
general  course  of  the  thought.  The  prophet  brings  to  light 
another  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  full  manifestation  of  Yahweh's 
love  for  Judah.  He  reminds  the  people  of  their  common  origin, 
and  charges  them  with  disloyalty  to  one  another  and  to  Yahweh 
in  the  fact  that  they  have  divorced  their  faithful  Jewish  wives 
and  contracted  new  marriages  with  foreign  women.  In  view  of 
this  sin,  they  need  not  wonder  that  Yahweh  refuses  to  hear  their 
prayers.  He  desires  the  propagation  of  a  pure  and  godly  race. 
Therefore  his  people  must  be  loyal  to  their  marriage  relation- 
ships; for  divorce  is  a  deadly  e\al. 

10.  Have  we  not  all  one  father  ?]  The  address  now  is  to  the 
people,  rather  than  the  priests.  They  are  reminded  of  their 
common  fellowship,  as  members  of  the  same  spiritual  family. 
"Father"  here  refers  to  Yahweh  (cf.  1^),  and  the  question  is 
parallel  to  the  following  one  in  meaning  as  well  as  in  form.  Some 
interpreters  have  seen  here  an  allusion  to  the  human  progenitors 
of  the  Hebrews,  viz.  Abraham,*  or  Jacob,t  or  even  Adam. J 
But  human  parentage  would  scarcely  be  assigned  the  place  of 
honour,  coming  first  in  the  sentence,  with  Yahweh  taking  second 
place. — Has  not  one  God  created  us  ?]  This,  of  course,  is  a  propo- 
sition that  would  apply  equally  well  to  all  mankind  in  the  mind 
of  this  writer  and  the  more  thoughtful  of  his  contemporaries. 
But  in  this  and  the  preceding  question,  he  is  evidently  thinking 
of  the  spiritual  unity  that  should  prevail  in  his  nation,  because 
of  the  especially  close  relationship  between  them  and  the  great 
God  of  the  world.  He  is  laying  a  basis  for  his  protest  against 
the  introduction  of  schismatic  elements  into  the  community's 
life. — Why  do  we  deceive  each  his  brother]  Certain  conduct  is 
characterised  here  as  treachery  among  brethren  and  wholly  in- 

*  So  e.  g.  Jer.,  Sanctius,  Theiner,  Knabenbauer,  Hal.. 

t  So  e.  g.  AE.,  Ki.,  Grotius,  Pococke.  %  So  Abar.,  el  al.. 


48  MALACHI 

consistent  with  the  fact  of  their  common  family  unity. — In  pro- 
faning the  covenant  of  our  fathers?]  It  is  not  likely  that  any  spe- 
cific covenant  is  intended.  It  is  rather  figuratively  used,  denot- 
ing the  general  obligation  of  loyalty  one  to  another  that  has  been 
inherited  from  the  past.  For  a  similar  use  of  the  word  "cove- 
nant," V.  Am.  i'.*  A  covenant  was  regularly  confirmed  by  an 
oath  and  thus  given  religious  sanction;  hence  its  violation  is 
properly  characterised  as  profanation;  cf.  Ps.  55^1  Sg^''^-  ^^  There 
is  no  reason  for  segregating  this  verse  from  vv.  "•  ^^  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  an  introduction  to  a  discussion  of  the  evils  of  divorce, 
while  the  following  verses  are  concerned  with  mixed  marriages. f 
The  practice  of  mixed  marriage  was  fraught  with  such  serious 
consequences  for  the  religious  and  social  unity  of  the  community 
that  those  of  the  stricter  sort  felt  perfectly  justified  in  branding 
those  who  contracted  such  unions  as  disloyal  to  their  brethren. 
This  accounts  too  for  the  use  of  the  term  "brother";  whereas, 
if  V.  ^"  had  only  divorce  in  view,  we  should  have  expected  some 
word  designating  the  wronged  women. — 11.  Judah  has  played 
traitor  and  abomination  has  been  wrought  in  Jerusalem]  M,  reads 
"in  Israel  and  in  Jerusalem."  But  this  is  due  to  expansion  by  a 
later  editorj:  Israel,  as  distinguished  from  Judah,  is  not  else- 
where in  Malachi  the  occasion  of  protest  or  promise  and  lies 
outside  of  the  circle  of  interest;  while,  if  it  be  identical  with 
Judah  here,  it  has  been  rendered  unnecessary  by  the  immediately 
preceding  mention  of  Judah.  The  conduct  of  individuals,  or  of 
a  group,  within  Judah  has  involved  the  whole  community  in  re- 
proach. As  the  ensuing  sentence  shows,  the  prophet  here  turns 
to  the  aspect  of  the  people's  sin  which  directly  concerns  Yahweh 
himself.  The  term  "abomination"  is  prevailingly  used  of  things 
or  acts  that  are  abhorrent  to  Yahweh,  c.  g.  idolatry,  unclean- 
ness,  irregularities  of  ritual,  and  violations  of  ethical  law. — For 
Judah  has  profaned  the  sanctuary  of  Yahweh  which  he  loved]  The 
prophet's  attitude  toward  the  temple  is  of  a  piece  with  his  de- 
nunciation of  the  criminal  carelessness  of  the  priests  in  i "  "•.    The 

•  For  the  wide  range  ol  meaning  acquired  by  n>i2,  (f-  art.  "Covenant,"  by  N.  Schmidt, 
in  EB.. 

t  Contra  GASm.,  et  at.. 

t  So  Pres.,  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Bu.,  Dr.,  Isop.,  Du.'""' . 


2"  49 

temple  and  all  the  rites  connected  therewith  were  dear  to  him. 
This  is  the  only  place  where  Yahweh  is  explicitly  said  to  love 
the  temple;  but  it  is  implied  in  his  love  for  Mt.  Zion  (Ps.  78^*  87^) 
and  in  the  whole  attitude  of  Judaism  toward  the  ritual  and  the 
temple.  The  exact  nature  of  the  act  of  profanation  here  con- 
demned is  indicated  in  the  succeeding  sentence.  The  view  that 
the  sin  of  the  people  brings  profanation  upon  the  sanctuary  is 
one  that  is  characteristic  of  Ezekiel  and  of  the  Holiness  Code 
(Lv.  17-26),  The  presence  of  sinful  people  within  the  sacred 
precincts  contaminates  the  whole  place.  Some  would  interpret 
the  "holiness  of  Yahweh"  here  as  indicative  not  of  the  sanctuary, 
but  of  Israel  itself.*  But  then  we  should  have  expected  "holy 
to  Yahweh,"  as  always  elsewhere  {e.  g.  Lv.  21^)  when  applied  to 
Israel.  Furthermore,  "profaned"  is  always  applied  to  things 
that  were  "holy"  prior  to  the  profanation,  and  Israel  was  hardly 
so  classified  by  our  prophet.  The  holiness  of  Israel  is  always 
something  for  which  she  is  destined,  not  something  she  has  ever 
actually  attained  or  possessed. — He  has  married  the  daughter  of  a 
strange  god]  The  use  of  the  singular  number  seems  to  render  it 
difficult  to  understand  this  as  referring  primarily  to  literal  mar- 
riages between  the  men  of  Judah  and  idolatrous  women,  though 
such  marriages  undoubtedly  took  place;  cf.  Ezr.  (f^-  iqi^  f- 
Ne.  10^1  152^  ^■.  It  is  more  natural  to  interpret  the  statement  as 
meaning  that  an  alliance  has  practically  been  made  between 
Judah  and  some  people  that  does  not  worship  Yahweh  through 
the  common  celebration  of  such  marriages.  The  alliance  of  Yah- 
weh's  nation  with  foreign  nations  was  always  opposed  by  the 
prophets,  on  the  ground  that  it  involved  disloyalty  to  and  lack 
of  trust  in  Yahweh,  as  well  as  because  of  its  tendency  to  intro- 
duce idolatry  into  Judah;  cj.  Ho.  7"  8«  ^-  Is.  iS^  ^-  20.  The  con- 
test of  Yahwism  with  idolatry  was  by  no  means  brought  to  an 
end  by  the  exile.  It  was  a  constant  menace  to  Yahwism  even 
up  to  the  time  of  the  Maccabaean  revolt.  This  is  shown  by  the 
repeated  attacks  made  upon  it  by  exilic  and  post-exilic  prophets 
(Is.  653  "■  "  Je.  441^  ^-  Zc.  132  ff  )  and  by  the  fact  that  the  Jew- 
ish colony  in  Southern  Egypt  shared  its  offerings,  as  late  as  420 

*  So  e.  g.  Dr.,  Dr.,  et  al.. 


5©  MALACHI 

B.C.  or  thereabouts,  among  three  deities,  viz.  Yahu,  Ism-Bethel, 
and  Anath-Bethel.*  The  admission  of  idolatrous  women  into 
the  community  and  the  recognition  of  foreign  gods,  which  was 
involved  in  these  mLxed  marriages,  are  the  facts  that  constitute 
the  basis  of  the  charge  that  Judah  has  defiled  the  temple  of  Yah- 
weh. — 12.  May  Yahweh  cut  off  for  the  man  who  does  this  awaker 
and  answerer  from  the  tents  of  Jacob]  The  individualistic  form  of 
this  malediction  shows  that  the  sin  of  Judah  referred  to  in  v. " 
was  one  arising  out  of  the  acts  of  various  individuals  and  that 
the  only  way  to  bring  it  to  an  end  is  by  dealing  with  the  indi- 
viduals involved.  Unfortunately  the  text  and  meaning  of  the 
words  rendered  "awaker  and  answerer"  are  obscure.  In  gen- 
eral, it  seems  as  though  they  must  include  or  characterise  the 
whole  of  the  transgressor's  family.  The  destruction  of  the  sinner 
and  all  his  kin  is  apparently  asked  for.  The  use  of  the  word 
"tents"  suggests  the  possibility  that  the  terms  "awaker  and 
answerer"  may  have  had  some  connection  with  camp-life.  Or 
they  may  refer  to  the  arousing  of  the  family  in  the  morning.  An 
interesting  parallel  from  the  Arabic  is  afforded  by  the  phrase, 
"there  is  not  in  the  city  a  caller,  nor  is  there  a  responder,"  mean- 
ing that  none  have  been  left  alive.f  This  general  meaning  has 
been  marvellously  handled  by  some  interpreters;  e.  g.  man  is 
here  indicated  as  distinguished  from  animals,  which  wake  in- 
deed, but  do  not  answer;  |  or,  with  the  following  clause  included, 
the  prophet  refers  to  the  child  so  young  that  it  only  awakens, 
the  child  slightly  older  who  awakes  and  answers,  and  the  adults 
who  worship,  i.  e.  the  whole  of  the  man's  family.§  But  the  in- 
fant of  the  first  few  weeks  would  hardly  be  called  an  "awaker." 
The  correct  element  in  this  latter  interpretation  is  the  feeling 
that  the  language  must  be  limited  in  its  scope  to  the  family  of 
the  offender.  Other  meanings  proposed,  without  change  of  text, 
have  been  "teacher  and  scholar";**  "son  and  grandson ";tt 
"master  and  servant";  It  "stranger  and  kinsman."  §§  Efforts  at 

•  V.  Papyrus  i8,  col.  VII,  lines  4-6,  published  in  Sachau's  Aramdische  Papyrus  und  Oslraka 

t  Cited  by  Ges.  (Thesaurus,  p.  1004);   and  also  Woolf.  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgen- 
landischen  Geselhchaft,  for  1900,  p.  11.    CJ.  also  Torrey,  JBL.  XXIV  (1905),  176-178. 
X  Umbreit.  ^^  Koh..  "  B.  Jer.,  Hi..  tt  &  OJ,  Ew.. 

XX  Gal..  {§  Yahuda,  in  Zeitschri/l  fiir  Assyriologie,  XVI,  264. 


) 12.13 


51 


emendation  have  been  made,  to  wit,  "root  and  branch";* 
"lad  and  lass";t  "witness  and  respondent,"  J  to  which  Marti 
rightly  objects  that  in  such  case  we  should  have  expected, 
not  "tents  of  Jacob,"  but  "gates  of  his  city,"  or  some  tribunal 
of  justice.  Moreover,  not  every  one  was  engaged  in  lawsuits; 
hence  the  expression  is  not  sufficiently  comprehensive.  Still 
others  abandon  the  two  words  as  unintelligible. § — And  one 
bringing  an  ojjcring  to  Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  is  a  comprehensive 
summary,  since  any  individual  of  adult  age,  man  or  woman, 
could  bring  an  offering  to  Yahweh  and  was  under  obligation  so 
to  do.  This  means,  therefore,  practically  the  extermination  of 
the  entire  family  of  the  guilty  man. — 13.  And  this  again  ye  do 
— ye  cover  the  altar  of  Yahweh  with  tears]  A  strong  figure  ex- 
pressive of  the  intensity  of  zeal  with  which  they  seek  Yahweh's 
favour.  Cf.  i  K.  iS^^-^*.  "Again"  is  logical  rather  than  chrono- 
logical, though  some  would  make  it  mean  "the  second  time" 
(viz.  Ne.  132^"),  the  first  time  being  that  related  in  Ezr.  9  and 
10.** — With  weeping  and  groaning]  Probably  an  expansion  of 
the  original  by  some  reader. ff  It  adds  nothing  essential  and  is 
awkwardly  placed  in  the  sentence. — Because  there  is  no  more  any 
turning  unto  the  offering  or  any  receiving  of  favour  at  your  hands] 
This  is  the  cause  for  the  weeping  of  the  people.  Yahweh  refuses 
to  recognise  their  gifts  and  prayers  because  of  their  sins;  and 
so  they  redouble  their  efforts  to  propitiate  him,  but  do  not  for- 
sake their  sins.  This  interpretation  seems  more  natural  than 
that  which  refers  the  weeping  to  the  divorced  wives  who  come 
to  Yahweh's  altar  mth  their  grief  and  constitute  an  effectual 
obstacle  to  the  bestowal  of  Yahweh's  favour.JI  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  women  were  not  allowed  to  approach  the  altar;  yet  the 
covering  of  the  altar  with  tears  is  figurative  in  any  case  and  the 
legitimacy  of  the  figure  does  not  depend  upon  the  proximity  of 
the  women  to  the  altar  (cf.  Hb.  2^'').  The  real  cause  of  Yahweh's 
displeasure,  however,  is  not  the  weeping  of  the  women,  but  the 
materialism,  sensuousness  and  cruelty  of  their  husbands  who 

*  Torrey  (but  abandoned  by  him  in  JBL.  XXIV),  Marti. 

fBachmann.  t  We.,  el  al..  §  Wkl.,  et  at.. 

•*  So  e.  g.  Hesselberg,  Mau.,  Hd..  tt  So  Marti,  Siev.,  Now.^. 

XX  Contra  Rosenm.,  Hi.,  Mau.,  Hd.,  Schegg,  Reinke,  Koh.,  Ke.,  Hal.,  et  al.. 


52  MALACm 

make  them  weep.  The  view  that  the  prophet  is  denouncing  the 
women's  custom  of  weeping  for  Tammuz  or  Adonis*  is  a  curi- 
osity of  interpretation. — 14.  And  you  say,  Wherefore  ?]  A  re- 
currence to  the  question  and  answer  method  of  i^-  ^-  ''.  The 
question  calls  for  an  explanation  of  Yahweh's  refusal  to  look 
upon  the  questioners  with  favour. — Because  Yahweh  witnesses  be- 
tween thee  and  the  wife  of  thy  youth,  against  whom  thou  hast  acted 
treacherously]  The  only  natural  interpretation  of  this  is  that  the 
men  of  Judah  in  large  numbers  have  in  mature  life  divorced 
(r/.  2^^)  the  wives  whom  they  had  married  in  the  heyday  of  their 
youth.  The  occasion  of  these  divorces,  as  appears  from  2",  was 
the  desire  to  marry  foreign  women.  It  is  true  that  the  possession 
of  a  wife  was  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  contraction  of  a  sec- 
ond marriage.  Polygamy  was  the  law  of  the  land  even  down  to 
the  end  of  the  Jewish  state.  The  Talmud  distinctly  recognises 
it,  in  its  prohibition  of  a  larger  number  of  wives  than  four  to  the 
ordinary  Jewish  citizen  and  eighteen  for  the  king  himself.f  But 
in  the  post-exilic  age  it  is  quite  clear  that  monogamy  was  looked 
upon  as  the  ideal  state  of  marriage  (Gn.  2^^°-  Pr.  ^^^°-  3110  «• 
BS.  9^  26^-^)  and  was  the  actual  condition  in  most  families.  Fur- 
thermore, the  dismissal  of  the  first  wife  may  well  have  been  a 
prerequisite  to  the  new  marriage  laid  down  by  the  relatives  of 
the  coveted  bride,  since  the  marriage  is  most  easily  accounted 
for  as  a  means  of  securing  influence  with  and  favour  from  power- 
ful foreigners.  In  a  polygamous  family,  the  first  wives  would 
naturally  hold  the  place  of  honour  and  power.  Torrey  would 
make  the  term  "wife  of  thy  youth"  designate  the  Yahweh  re- 
ligion, which  was  being  abandoned  by  the  Jews  in  favour  of  the 
worship  of  other  gods.J  But  this  would  be  the  only  case  of  such 
a  figurative  use  of  the  word  "wife"  and  it  is  without  any  true 
analogy.  Hosea's  designation  of  the  relation  between  Yahweh 
and  Israel  as  that  of  husband  and  wife  was  but  the  special  appli- 
cation to  a  particular  case  of  a  terminology  that  was  common 
in  Semitic  religion,  where  the  conception  of  a  deity  as  husband 
constantly  recurs.  In  any  case,  the  designation  of  a  god  as  the 
nation's  husband  and  that  of  a  religion  as  the  nation's  wife  are 

•  So  Wkl..  t  Tract  Sanhcdrin,  ch.  II,  §  21.  J  So  also  VVkl.. 


2^'  53 

two  totally  different  things;  and  the  latter  figure  is  certainly  a 
somewhat  unnatural  one.  The  ordinary  view  has  been  objected 
to  on  the  ground  that  "daughter  of  a  strange  god"  would  mean 
a  goddess*  and  not  an  idolatrous  woman.  But  the  point  is  not 
well  taken.  By  the  same  reasoning,  "sons  of  Yahweh"  (Dt,  14^ 
Ho.  i*°  Is.  i^)  would  be  gods,  though  the  term  is  indisputably 
applied  to  the  Israelites.  In  accordance  with  an  idiomatic  usage 
of  "son"  and  "daughter,"  illustrated  by  the  phrases  "son  of 
strength,"  i.  e.  a  strong  man,  and  "daughter  of  Belial,"  i.  e.  a 
wicked  woman,  the  phrase  "  daughter  of  a  strange  god  "  is  equiva- 
lent to  "an  idolatrous  woman."  In  view  of  such  passages  as 
Nu.  21^9  Dt.  3219  and  Je.  2",  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
but  that  this  is  the  sense.  The  first  marriage  of  a  Hebrew  was 
ordinarily  contracted  at  a  very  early  age.  The  Talmud  declares 
the  boy  accursed  who  is  not  married  by  the  time  he  is  twenty 
years  of  age.f  In  Palestine,  Russia  and  Poland  at  the  present 
time,  the  boys  frequently  marry  at  the  age  of  thirteen  or  four- 
teen and  the  girls  even  younger;  cj.  Is.  54^  Every  contract  of 
whatever  sort  was  concluded  "before  God"  as  a  witness;  i.  e. 
God  was  called  upon  to  wreak  vengeance  upon  either  of  the  par- 
ties that  should  break  the  contract;  cf.  Gn.  31*''-.  Hence,  the 
wrath  of  God  must  inevitably  rest  upon  these  men  faithless  to 
their  marital  contracts. — Though  she  is  thy  comrade  and  the  wife 
of  thy  covenant]  The  word  rendered  "comrade"  is,  literally, 
"one  bound  to  thee."  No  English  noun  exactly  reproduces  its 
significance.  In  the  masculine  form,  it  is  applied  to  Yahweh  in 
Je.  3'*,  as  "the  comrade  of  my  youth";  cf.  Pr.  2^\  The  "wife  of 
thy  covenant"  is  equivalent  to  "the  wife  to  whom  thou  hast 
pledged  loyalty  and  support."  For  "covenant"  in  the  sense  of 
"pact"  or  "agreement,"  cf.  2  K.  11^  Ho.  10^  Jb.  31^  It  seems 
unnecessary  to  read  into  "covenant"  so  much  as  is  required  to 
make  it  mean  "thy  true  Israelite  compatriot."  |  The  word  is 
not  always  confined  to  strictly  religious  contracts;  §  and,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  applied  once,  at  least,  to  a  figurative  marriage 
(Ez,  16*).    The  proposal  to  drop  this  clause  as  a  gloss**  has  no 

•  Wkl..  t  Tract  Qiddusin.  I,  5  29. 

t  Contra  Kraet^schmar  (Bundeswrstellung  im  A.  T.  240/.).  Now.,  Isop.,  Du.^"-. 

§  Cf.  Valeton  in  ZAW.,  XIII,  262.  ••  Marti,  Siev.,  Now.". 


54  MALACm 

real  force,  considerations  based  upon  poetical  form  having  no 
warrant  in  this  context.  The  clause  clinches  the  accusation 
most  effectively. 

15.  The  beginning  of  this  verse  as  found  in  M  is  hopelessly 
obscure.  As  rendered  in  RV.  it  runs,  And  did  he  not  make  one, 
although  he  had  the  residue  of  the  Spirit  ?  Atid  wherefore  one  ?  He 
sought  a  godly  seed.]  This  is  a  possible  translation  of  M,  though 
there  is  no  indication  that  the  first  clause  is  interrogative  and 
the  "wherefore"  of  the  second  clause  is  regularly  represented 
by  a  different  Hebrew  word.  But  as  so  translated,  what  does 
the  passage  mean?  To  whom  does  the  pronoun  "he"  refer? 
Does  "he"  indicate  the  same  person  in  all  three  cases?  If  so, 
and  if  God  be  the  person  in  mind,  what  is  meant  by  his  having 
the  "residue"  or  "remnant  of  the  Spirit"?  In  any  case,  "rem- 
nant of  the  Spirit"  is  scarcely  a  Hebrew  point  of  view,  and  it 
lacks  all  analogy.  If  the  Spirit  of  Yahweh  be  thought  of  as  a 
personal  manifestation,  as  this  translation  seems  to  suggest,  how 
can  it  at  the  same  time  be  presented  as  an  abstract  quality  or 
be  spoken  of  quantitatively?  Could  the  Hebrews  think  of  the 
Spirit  as  limited  in  amount?  Furthermore,  the  bearing  of  this 
passage,  as  thus  conceived,  upon  the  argument  of  the  writer 
regarding  divorce  is  hard  to  discover.  RVm.  offers,  "And  not 
one  hath  done  so  who  had  a  residue  of  the  spirit.  Or  what?  Is 
there  one  that  seeketh  a  godly  seed?"  This  is  better,  in  that  it 
carries  on  the  preceding  thought  without  any  hiatus.  But  "so" 
is  missing  from  iJJ,  the  "spirit"  referred  to  is  wholly  undefined, 
the  phrase  "residue  of  the  spirit"  is  without  analogy  or  parallel, 
and  the  transition  to  the  latter  half  of  the  passage  is  too  abrupt. 
The  passage  has  been  subjected  to  many  widely  differing  inter- 
pretations, of  which  only  a  few  may  be  cited.  Some  make  God 
the  subject  and  treat  "one"  as  equivalent  to  "one  flesh"  (Gn.  2), 
interpreting  thus,  "God  made  Adam  and  Eve  one  flesh;  he 
might  have  given  Adam  many  wives,  for  he  had  plenty  of  spirit- 
ual essence  wherewith  to  furnish  them  souls;  but  he  sought  a 
godly  race."  *  Others  make  "one"  the  subject  and  identify  it 
with  Abraham,  interpreting  thus,  "Did  not  Abraham  put  away 

•  Ra.,  Hd.. 


215.16  55 

Hagar  and  yet  retain  the  divine  spirit?  So  the  people  inquire. 
The  prophet  replies,  Yes;  but  he  did  it  from  an  entirely  different 
motive  from  that  which  actuates  you.  He  sought  godly  seed; 
you,  the  gratification  of  your  own  lust  or  ambition."  *  Another 
interpretation  is  "Abraham  did  not  do  so  {i.  e.  send  away  Sarah, 
though  she  was  old  and  childless),  and  yet  an  heir  (IStl')  was  his 
desire.  And  what  was  he  seeking?  A  godly  seed."  t  Still 
others  have  made  it  more  general  in  scope,  viz.  "No  one  has 
done  it  (i.  e.  divorced  his  wife)  who  had  a  remnant  of  the  spirit. 
Why  should  any  one  do  it,  who  sought  seed  of  God?"  I  Owing 
to  the  obscurity  of  M,  many  attempts  have  been  made  to  emend 
the  text  {v.  i.).  The  reading  proposed  by  Wellhausen  has  met 
with  more  approval  than  any  other,  viz.  "Has  not  the  same  God 
given  us  breath  and  sustained  us?  And  what  does  he  desire? 
Seed  of  God!"  But  this  translation  is  hard  to  obtain  from  the 
Hebrew  original  suggested  for  it  (v.  i.).  One  of  the  most  recent 
conjectures  yields,  "Not  one  who  had  a  remnant  of  moral  sense 
has  done  it.  How  is  it  with  that  one?  He  it  is  who  seeks  a  godly 
seed."§  The  change  of  text  involved  in  this  is  slight,  but  the 
pronounced  and  sudden  shift  of  standpoint  in  the  word  "one" 
is  most  remarkable  and  unnatural.  No  satisfactory  solution  of 
the  problem  of  this  verse  has  yet  been  found.  For  further  sug- 
gestions, V.  i.. — Then  take  heed  to  your  spirit  and  let  no  one  act 
treacherously  toward  the  wife  of  his  youth]  Cf.  v.  ".  "Spirit"  is 
here  apparently  equivalent  to  "character,"  "purpose"  or  "will," 
as  e.  g.  in  Je.  51^  Hg.  i"  i  K.  21*  Ps.  51^^  This  is  an  admonition 
growing  out  of  v.  ^^  *,  whatever  that  passage  may  mean. — 16. 
For  one  who  hates  and  sends  away, covers  his  clothing  with  violence, 
says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  M  inserts  after  "sends  away"  the  phrase 
"says  Yahweh,  God  of  Israel."  This  is  probably  a  gloss;**  for  it 
separates  the  protasis  from  the  apodosis,  constitutes  the  only 
occurrence  of  this  title  of  Yahweh  in  Malachi,  and  is  superfluous 
alongside  of  the  immediately  following  aflarmation  of  divine 
authority.  The  figure  "cover  the  clothing  with  violence"  oc- 
curs nowhere  else  in  the  Old  Testament.    The  basis  of  the  figure 

•  De  Wette,  Koh.,  Ke..  t  Hal.  t  L.  de  Dieu,  Rosenm.. 

§  Du.P"  .  •*  So  We.,  Now.,  Bu.,  Siev.. 


56  MALACHI 

seems  to  lie  in  an  ancient  custom  whereby  the  casting  of  one's 
garment  over  a  woman  was  tantamount  to  claiming  her  as  a 
wife  (c/.  Ez.  i6*  Dt.  223»  Ru.  3^)*  The  first  two  words  of  this 
verse  as  found  in  M  are  unintelligible  in  this  context.  M  can 
only  be  rendered,  "He  hates  putting  away."  But  "he "must 
refer  to  Yahweh  who  is  himself  the  speaker.  RV.'s  rendering, 
"I  hate,"  involves  a  change  of  text,  which  is  on  the  whole  less 
likely  than  that  followed  here.  Other  references  to  wives  as 
hated  by  their  husbands  are  Gn.  29^'  Dt.  21^^-^'' . — So  take  heed 
to  your  spirit  and  act  not  treacherously]  This  is  a  repetition  of 
V.  *^ "  and  may  be  but  a  variant.f  The  section  would  end  im- 
pressively without  it. 

Vv.  ^°-i^  present  the  strongest  and  most  outspoken  condemna- 
tion of  the  divorce  evil  that  the  Old  Testament  offers.  They 
furnish  an  illustration  of  the  fact  that  the  laws  of  a  land  are 
never  up  to  the  moral  standards  of  its  best  citizens.  In  early 
Israel,  divorce  seems  to  have  been  the  exclusive  privilege  of  the 
man  and  to  have  been  permissible  on  the  slightest  grounds. 
The  Deuteronomic  law  took  a  forward  step  in  requiring  the  hus- 
band to  give  the  divorced  wife  a  bill  of  divorcement  (Dt.  24^  ") 
and  in  prohibiting  the  remarriage  of  the  two  in  case  the  woman 
should  marry  another  husband  and  be  again  made  a  widow, 
either  by  the  death  of  her  second  husband  or  by  divorce.  These 
restrictions  were  both  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  some  con- 
sideration on  the  part  of  the  man  before  he  divorces  his  wife,  by 
making  his  action  more  formal  and  public  on  the  one  hand  and, 
on  the  other,  irrevocable.  Furthermore,  the  right  of  divorce 
was  denied  to  the  man  in  two  cases,  viz.  when  he  had  been  forced 
to  marry  a  virgin  whom  he  had  seduced  (Dt.  22-^)  and  when  he 
had  slandered  his  newly  married  wife  (22^^).  These  laws  and 
the  protest  of  our  prophet  show  that  the  marital  rights  of  women 
were  slowly  emerging  in  Israel  as  elsewhere.  Mohammed  sought 
to  check  the  frequency  of  divorce  by  exactly  the  opposite  method, 
viz.  by  prohibiting  the  husband  from  taking  back  his  divorced 
wife  until  after  she  had  first  lived  with  another  man  as  wife. 
This  law  of  the  Koran  gave  rise  to  gross  abuse  of  the  marriage 

*  V.  WRS.  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia,  ist  ed.,  p.  87.  t  So  Sicv.. 


,510-16 


57 


rite.  Neither  the  Jewish  nor  the  Mohammedan  law  brought 
much  real  relief.  Divorce  continued  to  be  the  right  of  the  man 
alone  in  Israel,  was  checked  by  but  few  legal  obstacles,  and  was 
indulged  in  liberally. 

The  general  interpretation  of  w.  '"-'^  presented  above  has  been  at- 
tacked in  recent  times  from  three  different  directions.  GASm.,  followed 
by  Marti,  Siev.  and  Kent,  would  set  aside  vv.  "•  '=  as  an  intrusion  into 
the  original  prophecy.  The  grounds  urged  in  support  of  this  are  (i) 
that  they  break  the  connection  between  v. '"  and  v. " ;  (2)  that  their 
interest  is  not  in  ethics  as  in  v. '",  but  in  cultus;  (3)  that  they  deal 
with  the  subject  of  mixed  marriages,  whereas  vv.  '"•  '^-'^  are  concerned 
with  divorce;  and  (4)  that  their  attitude  toward  foreigners  is  contrary 
to  that  of  Malachi  (c/.  i").  In  reply  to  these  considerations,  it  may 
be  said  (i)  that  i"  probably  has  no  reference  to  foreigners  (v.  the  note 
on  that  passage) ;  (2)  that  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  same  writer 
may  not  have  both  ethical  and  religious  interests  and  may  not  present 
both  of  them  in  treating  different  aspects  of  one  and  the  same  subject; 
the  two  are  certainl}'  not  mutually  exclusive  in  vv.  '"-'5;  (3)  the  ques- 
tions of  divorce  and  mixed  marriages  were  so  inextricably  intermingled 
in  actual  practice  that  in  discussing  either  the  other  was  involved. 
They  are  not  two  separate  and  distinct  subjects,  but  two  phases  of  one 
subject,  viz.  the  obligation  of  the  Jew  to  be  loyal  to  his  people  and  his 
God.  Read  from  this  point  of  view,  there  is  no  lack  of  continuity  in 
the  progress  of  the  thought. 

Wkl.  sees  in  this  passage  an  evidence  that  the  prophecy  of  Mai. 
originated  in  the  days  of  i\ntiochus  Epiphanes.  The  community  is 
split  into  two  parties,  the  pious  who  keep  in  the  old  paths  and  the  apos- 
tates who  are  forsaking  Yahwism  and  going  over  to  Greek  ways  and 
thoughts.  This  passage  denounces  this  movement,  and  records  the 
erection  of  an  altar  to  MeSammem-el  and  the  observance  of  the  Adonis 
cult.  But  in  order  to  obtain  such  surprising  results,  Wkl.  has  to  posit 
a  wholesale  corruption  of  the  text,  so  great,  indeed,  that  he  is  unable  to 
suggest  the  necessary  corrections,  though  he  is  quite  sure  as  to  the  gen- 
eral sense  of  the  passage.  Methods  of  this  kind  can  hardly  be  deemed 
scientific. 

The  third  attempt  to  displace  the  traditional  interpretation  is  that  of 
Torrey  (1898).  He  was  the  first  after  (S  to  suggest  that  the  prophet's 
attack  was  not  upon  mixed  marriages  or  divorce,  but  upon  apostacy 
to  a  foreign  cult.  On  this  basis,  "daughter  of  a  foreign  god"  becomes 
"cult  of  a  foreign  god,"  and  "wife  of  thy  youth"  becomes  the  religion 
of  Yahweh  to  which  Israel  had  formerly  been  true.  But,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  above,  the  language  will  not  bear  this  figurative  interpre- 
tation.   Furthermore,  the  only  satisfactory  interpretation  of  v. '-  makes 


58  MALACm 

it  threaten  the  destruction  of  the  guilty  individual  with  his  family  and 
strongly  supports  the  literal  treatment  of  the  whole  passage. 

10.  The  first  two  clauses  of  this  v.  are  transposed  by  (6'^^'^'  "''''*•  S  A, 
Eth.,HP.  22,  23,  26,  36,  51,  62,  68,  86,  95,  106,  114,  147,  185,  198,  233, 
238,  Ignatius,  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Athanasius,  and  Theodore  of  IMop- 
suestia.  This  is  probably  due  to  a  desire  to  give  God  the  first  place, 
the  word  "father"  being  interpreted  of  Abraham,  or  some  other  man. 
(gxc.  b  ^H  agree  with  the  order  of  M.  (Sl^°-  om.  v. 'o*.  <g  puts  all 
the  suffixes  in  the  2d  p.  pi.,  probably  to  avoid  including  the  prophet 
himself  with  the  guilty  ones. — ij3j]  Rd.  nJ3j,  with  4  codd.  of  Kenn., 
&  {jl  and  most  interpreters.  The  Niphal  of  ^J3  does  not  occur,  nor 
would  it  be  fitting  here.  The  impf.  and  inf.  cstr.  elsewhere  always 
have  o. — 11.  rnj3]  Probably  an  error  for  ij3,  in  view  of  SSn  in  the 
ne.xt  sentence,  where  niini  is  again  the  subject.  The  use  of  the  fem.  is, 
of  course,  permissible  {cf.  i*,  where  onN  is  treated  as  fem.),  and  may 
have  been  chosen  here  because  of  the  series  of  fem.  forms  in  which  it 
occurs.  The  common  explanation  (so  e.  g.  Mau.,  Hd.,  Koh.,  Ke., 
Isop.)  is  that  in  the  fem.  form  the  land  is  thought  of,  and  in  the 
masc,  the  people;  but  this  is  a  bit  artificial. — Sj,'3i  anx]  Rd.  Si'2  lanx, 
with  Bu.;  "^J-'^i  yields  a  poor  sequence  of  tenses.  Moreover,  '1JI  S>"a 
does  not  add  a  new  fact,  but  merely  defines  the  content  of  the  preced- 
ing phrase  more  explicitly. — loj  Ss  na  h';2^]  (&  Kal  iireTi^devcrev  ets  ^€oi>s 
dWoTplovSj  paraphrasing  freely,  perhaps  to  avoid  the  mention  of  mar- 
riages with  aliens.  05^  ■=•  ^  om.  els;  cf.  21  et  ajffeclavit  deos  alienos.  & 
and  worshipped  strange  gods.  Wkl.  "i3J  '?N~n''3  Sj:£3i,  "and  has  built  an 
idolatrous  baityl,"  i.  e.  a  shrine.  Che.  'j  Sx-rria  hzH^^,  "and  has  eaten 
in  the  house  of  a  foreign  god."  H.  Isaacs  {JQR.  XI,  526),  n^'a-Sw  n3i 
'j  Sn. — 12.  v^H^]  (&  B  treat  S  as  introducing  the  object  of  the  verb,  a 
common  usage  in  Aram,  and  Syr.. — nji)ji  •\^]  i^  {3  =  and  his  son  and 
his  son's  son.  B  viagistrum  el  discipidum.  SI  et  humilis,  apparently 
omitting  "i>;  so  also  Eth..  (&  i^s  Kal  raireivwdy  =  nj>'i  ij;;  hence 
We.  njijji  nj;  {cf.  3^  Jb.  13"  BS.  42^;  so  GASm.,  Now.,  BDB.,  Oort, 
Bu.,  van  H..  Kenn.  99  also  has  ij.'.  But  it  would  be  a  strange  social 
order  in  which  every  man  was  provided  with  a  "Klager  und  Vertei- 
diger"  and  would  look  upon  the  loss  of  these  as  a  terrible  calamity. 
Torrey  ']y>^\  r"?.-'  {cf.  3",  where  J3  renders  exactly  as  it  does  here);  so 
Marti,  Kent.  But  this  is  too  wide  a  variation  from  M,  and  Torrey 
himself  has  since  abandoned  it  {v.  s.).  Bachmann  ^"^P.]  V^.  Gr.  -lyp 
j^Ni;  cf.  Gn.  38=.  •\';„  occurs  again  in  Ct.  5-  and  is  the  regular  form  for 
the  prtc.  of  the  stative  verb;  cf.  no.  Whatever  its  precise  meaning 
{v.  s.),  the  phrase  is  an  example  of  the  idiom  in  which  everything  is 
subsumed  under  two  opposite  categories,  e.  g.  J-"5J  310;  3B'i  nay,  Zc.  9'; 
airj?i  -\1xj7,  Dt.  32'".  The  scope  of  the  phrase  is  here  clearly  confined 
to  the  family  or  friends  of  the  offender. — 13.  r^iv]  (g  d  inlcovv  = 


,10-lS 


59 


'PKife';  so  Wkl.,  Che.,  Bu..  Marti  om.  it  as  a  gloss  intended  to  re- 
store the  connection  between  v.  i°  and  v.  "  after  it  had  been  broken  by 
the  insertion  of  vv.  "• ";  so  Now.'^,  Kent. — niD3]  Rd.  iD^n,  foil.  (6 
^KoXi^TTTeTe;  so  Aq.,  6  19.  Some  prefer  Bn>Dr;  e.  g.  Bachmann,  vanH., 
Isop.;  but  the  impf.  is  better  as  an  explanation  of  the  preceding  impf. 
itfjjn.  Marti,  10371,  which  yields  a  poor  consecution  of  tenses. — px^]  ^ 
iK  kSwwv  =  jiND.  Wkl.  pNi.  Bu.  ]ND.  Many  interpreters  make  this 
a  result  clause,  viz.  "so  that  there  is  no,"  etc.,  giving  'c  the  same 
force  as  in  Zp.  2K  But  the  line  of  thought  is  clearer  and  stronger  if  '0 
be  given  causal  significance;  v.  s.. — ddtt]  (^  ^  Q  =  from  your  hands; 
but  this  does  not  call  for  a  different  text,  for  the  Heb.  often  uses  the  sg. 
where  we  should  use  a  pi.;  contra  Isop.. — dhicnij  (6  SI  =  and  if  thou 
sayest. — o  *?>]  ($^'^^  and  HP.  40,  49,  106  apparently  om.;  but  this  is 
probably  due  to  an  inner-Greek  error  of  6  for  8ti. — Ti^n]  Bu.  ii".. 

15.  This  is  unquestionably  the  most  difficult  v.  in  Mai.;  v.  s.. — nSi] 
B  nonne  =  xSn;  so  &  and  We.,  Oort,  Now.,  van  H.,  Isop..  Siev. 
Sni.— ins  n'-i]  (gB  HP.  48,   233,  Kal  ov  KaUv;    (gx  c  b  HP.  86,  Kal  ov 

Ka\6s.       ^AQFHeid.    HP.    22,    26,   36,  42,  49,   51,  62,  QI,  95,  97,    I30,    I47, 

185,  228,  233,  240,  ovKaWos,  probably  to  be  read  as  ovk  fiXXos,  with 
^H  52  ^Bo.  ^  Etij^  Arm.,  (g'"  HP.  23,  40,  106,  ovk  &\\ws  or  oi  /cdXXus. 
The  proper  disposition  of  this  indefinite  "one"  is  the  most  difficult 
problem  in  the  interpretation  of  v.  '*;  v.  s..  It  is  in  an  vmusual  posi- 
tion for  the  subject  of  a  verbal  sentence,  imless  it  is  intended  to  be 
emphatic;  and  it  is  just  as  abnormal  a  position  for  the  object. — n-j-;] 
&  was  there  not  one  man?  either  omitting  'y  or  else  reading  it  as  ""n. 
Van  H.  Dt-j?.  Du.P'"-  inu-;-,  taking  1  from  the  foil.  word. — -iN-fi]  \'an  H. 
iNUV  We.  "ixb'm;  so  Oort,  Now.,  Isop..  But  the  resulting  idiom,  in 
the  sense  given  to  it  by  We.,  is  without  any  parallel  in  Heb..  in'^'m 
nn  could  only  mean,  "and  left  (or  kept)  spirit  (or  breath)  over";  it 
could  never  mean  "and  maintained  breath  (or  spirit)."  Further,  the 
idiom  nn  nof]}  is  harsh;  we  should  expect  l."iJ,  nsj,  or  the  like.  It  is 
possible  that  ixa'  should  be  irs;  cf.  the  opposite  transposition  in  Mi. 
33.  If,  in  addition,  we  accept  B's  treatment  of  n»'j;  and  read  rnv  in  its 
place,  also  dropping  inx  as  a  dittog.  from  the  succeeding  nnxn,  we  get 
fairly  good  sense,  viz.  "there  is  not  a  man  who  has  moral  sense 
(=  spirit)."  This  suits  the  preceding  context  well,  and  disposes  of  the 
difficult  "remnant  of  spirit."  But  the  connection  with  what  follows  is 
not  sufficiently  close.  &,  however,  furnishes  a  way  of  escape  here  also, 
in  that  it  omits  n::i.  Thus  the  whole  sentence  becomes,  "there  is  not 
one  who  lias  moral  sense,  viz.  one  seeking  a  godly  seed."  nci  is  easily 
accounted  for  as  a  marginal  query  by  some  puzzled  reader,  and  n  of 
inxn  may  well  be  due  to  dittog.  from  nsi.  Cf.  my  presentation  of  this 
reconstruction  in  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Litera- 
tures, April,  1912. — m-\]  Van  H.  nni,    Bu.  rfjn;  cf.  2  S.  i6». — iS]  We. 


6o  MALACHI 

ii^;  so  Oort,  Now.,  Siev.,  Isop.. — inxn  nsi]  ^  om.  nm.  ($  Kal  etvare 
tI  dXXo  ij  K.  T.  X.  H  d  quid  nnus  .  .  .  nisi.  Bu.  nh  noi. — y-\r  cpan 
D'hSn]  (S  ffiripixa.  ^■t]T€t  6  de6$.  &  owe  sought  seed  from  God.  B  quaerit 
nisi  semen  Dei.  Riessler,  on  the  basis  of  (&,  restores  the  preceding  five 
words  thus,  d\iSn  rpao  jjitd  nnnN  no  omcNi.  But  <6's  Kal  etirare  is 
almost  certainly  due  to  interpretation,  and  not  to  the  presence  of  a 
Heb.  equivalent  for  it;  and  the  same  thing  will  account  for  the  position 
of  a-ir^pfia  in  (&.  The  sense  secured  is  not  sufficiently  strong  to  carry 
these  textual  changes. — ajnna  annDtt'ji]  Bu.  inna  nnu'ji;  so  Now.'^C?). 
— nnyj  ntt'N3i]  Rd.,  with  8>,  r^U'J  ncN3  tt"iNi;  so  Gr.,  Now.,  Marti, 
Isop.(?),  Du.^'^"-. — iJ3^]  (6  01  35,  9  codd.  of  Kenn.  and  6  of  de  R.  = 
iJ2n;  so  We.,  Oort,  Now.,  Dr.,  Or.,  Sicv.,  van  H.. — 16.  n'^c'  N,:u— >:]  (& 
dXX4  iav  jjiiffi^ffas  i^airoa-TeiXris.  &  om..  H  cutn  odio  habueris  dimille; 
so  21,  changing  what  is  otherwise  a  denunciation  of  divorce  into  an  ex- 
plicit authorisation  thereof.  We.  '»>  NJi^N.  Van  H.  treats  ait'  as  equiv- 
alent to  NJJ?  (but  everywhere  else  the  form  of  the  prtc.  is  Njr)  and 
makes  it  the  subject  of  'w-,  read  as  nSr.  It  seems  better  to  follow 
Du.^'°-  in  keeping  nju*  as  a  pf .  and  reading  nSr,  in  asyndetic  construction 
with  it.  This  involves  no  further  change  in  the  sentence,  as  does  the 
reading  of  We.. — noDi]  (6  Kal  Ka\}j\p€i.  B  operiet  autem.  &  =  nD3'>  n*^; 
so  21.  Oort,  mD?v  We.  nopi;  so  Now.,  Marti,  Siev.,  Isop.. — v^'nS]  01 
=  ItrnS.  <S  t4  ivevfjL-^fiaTd  aov  {(^^  HP.  22,  36,  51,  62,  86,  95,  147, 
185,  238,  vfiQv);  probably  an  error  for  e»'5i5/«iTo,  which  was  restored 
here  by  Cappellus  and  also  by  Grabe  (1720),  with  the  support  of  the 
daughter  versions  of  (&,  viz.  &  A,  Eth.,  and  the  Georgian.  Some  com- 
mentators {e.g.  Hi.,  Mau.)  have  interpreted  'S  as  "wife,"  after  the 
analogy  of  the  Ar.  libasun;  cf.  Koran,  Sura  II,  183,  where  speaking  of 
wives  it  is  said,  "they  are  your  garment  and  j'ou  are  theirs."  But 
this  is  totally  without  support  in  OT.  usage. — njjr]  C&^'  adds  ttJc 
ffvvdi^KTjVj  and  HP.  95,  185,  t^v  diadi^KTjv. 


§   5.    THE   NEAR   APPROACH  OF  THE  DAY  OF 
JUDGMENT   (2''-3«). 

The  prophet  cites  another  cause  for  Yahweh's  failure  to  bless 
Israel,  viz.  his  people  have  lost  all  faith  in  their  God.  Therefore, 
he  will  send  his  messenger  to  prepare  for  the  coming  of  the  day 
of  judgment.  Then  will  there  be  a  purification  of  the  priestly 
order  and  a  full  exposure  and  condemnation  of  sinners  of  every 
kind.  For  Yahweh  is  unalterably  opposed  to  sin,  and  the  sinners 
in  Israel  must  perish. 


2^''-3®  6i 

2".  You  have  made  Yahweh  weary  by  your  statements]  i.  e.  the 
patience  of  Yahweh  is  exhausted;  cf.  Is.  43^*.  The  prophet  ad- 
dresses the  people  in  general,  not  the  pious  in  Israel,*  nor  the 
glaringly  wicked  in  particular,  as  is  shown  by  the  nature  of 
the  charges  in  v.^.  Their  attitude  of  mind  Yahweh  can  no  longer 
endure.  The  truly  pious  are,  of  course,  exempted  from  this  ac- 
cusation ;  but  their  numbers  are  so  few  as  to  make  any  careful 
discrimination  in  statement  unnecessary  in  a  general  proposition 
such  as  this. — Yet  you  say,  How  have  we  made  him  weary  ?]  The 
question  and  answer  style  is  here  resorted  to  for  the  opening  of 
a  new  phase  of  the  discourse,  just  as  in  3^^-  ". — In  that  you  say, 
Every  one  that  does  evil  is  good  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh  and  he  takes 
pleasure  in  them]  Cf.  Zp.  i^-.  The  experiences  of  Israel  had 
been  so  hard  and  sad  during  the  exilic  and  early  post-exilic  years 
that  faith  in  Yahweh  and  his  goodness  was  at  a  low  ebb.  Many 
were  ready  to  take  the  position  here  stated,  viz.  that  Yahweh's 
influence  was  exerted  in  behalf  of  the  wicked  as  over  against  the 
righteous.  The  favour  of  Yahweh  was  looked  for  in  the  form  of 
material  prosperity  of  every  sort.  But  very  little  of  this  had  come 
in  Israel's  way  of  recent  years.  Hence  arose  the  skepticism  re- 
garding Yahweh's  interest  in  the  righteous;  "the  earth  is  given 
into  the  hands  of  the  wicked"  (Jb.  g^*).  The  structure  of  the 
sentence  lays  emphasis  upon  "them."  Yahweh's  delight  is  evi- 
dently not  in  the  good,  as  would  be  expected,  but  in  the  bad. — 
Or,  Where  is  the  God  of  justice  ?]  This  is  another  expression  of  the 
same  attitude  of  mind.  The  moral  government  of  the  world  is  | 
out  of  joint.  The  prophet's  contemporaries  were  for  the  most 
part  unable  to  see  the  hand  of  God  in  the  movements  of  their 
times.  It  seemed  to  them  that  he  had  departed  from  the  scene, 
leaving  the  interests  of  his  people  uncared  for.  Were  not  they 
the  righteous?  Why  did  the  wicked  prosper?  It  is  not  at  all 
unlikely  that  there  is  a  note  of  sarcasm  in  the  people's  question. 
The  prophets  had  constantly  emphasised  the  insistence  of  Yah- 
weh upon  justice  as  the  indispensable  prerequisite  to  his  favour. 
What  now  has  become  of  his  much- vaunted  sense  of  justice?  Is 
it  not  time  that  he  exercised  a  little  of  it  himself? — 3^  Behold,  I 

*  Contra  van  H.. 


62  MALACHI 

am  about  to  send  my  messenger  and  he  will  prepare  the  way  before 
me]  This  is  the  answer  to  the  skeptical  question  of  the  people. 
The  wrongs  of  the  present  age  are  to  be  righted  by  Yahweh  in 
person,  and  he  is  even  now  on  the  point  of  sending  out  his  fore- 
runner. The  long-looked-for  day  of  Yahweh  is  about  to  dawn. 
From  earliest  times,  this  day  had  been  reckoned  upon  as  the 
panacea  for  all  ills;  cf.  Am.  5'**.*  Our  prophet  is  but  reiterating 
a  promise  that  had  been  made  and  remade  in  every  time  of  dis- 
tress and  crisis.  He  gives  to  it,  however,  not  the  significance  that 
it  had  had  in  the  popular  mythical-religious  thought,  but  the 
deeply  ethical  value  that  had  been  ineflfaceably  stamped  upon  it 
by  Amos  and  succeeding  prophets  who  had  developed  and  en- 
riched the  idea  prior  to  the  exile.  The  representation  that  a  pre- 
liminary work  is  to  be  carried  through  by  Yahweh's  agent  before 
the  coming  of  the  great  day  itself  is  found  only  here  and  in  4^-  ®, 
though  the  thought  of  preparing  the  way  of  Yahweh  appears  in 
Is.  40^,  in  a  somewhat  similar  connection.!  This  representation 
was  not  original  with  this  prophet,  nor  confined  to  him,  as  is 
clear  from  the  last  phrase  of  the  announcement  in  this  verse. 
The  identity  of  the  messenger  is  not  revealed.  It  seems  to  be 
taken  for  granted  as  known  by  the  prophet's  contemporaries. 
Interpreters  have  sought  to  find  here  a  prediction  of  the  coming 
of  John  the  Baptist;  J  or  of  the  prophet  promised  in  Is.  40^  "• 
and  identified  with  Elijah  in  Mai.  4'';§  or  of  the  death-angel;** 
or  of  the  mythical  Messiah  ben  Joseph  of  the  rabbis,  who  was 
to  precede  the  Messiah  ben  David. ff  Others  have  seen  in  it  a 
figurative  embodiment  of  the  whole  line  of  the  prophets;  t|  or 
an  ideal  figure  ;§§  or  a  play  upon  the  name  of  our  prophet.***  It 
seems,  on  the  face  of  it,  most  natural  to  interpret  the  state- 
ment in  the  light  of  4'',  which  declares  that  Elijah  will  return 
before  the  coming  of  the  day  of  Yahweh  and  will  perform  the 

•  V.  J.  M.  Powis  Smith,  "The  Day  of  Yahweh,"  AJTh.,  V,  505/.. 

t  The  figure  is  borrowed  from  the  oriental  custom  of  sending  out  messengers  to  the  various 
towns  and  villages  through  which  a  king  was  about  to  journey,  who  should  notify  the  inhabi- 
tants of  his  approach  and  thus  enable  them  to  prepare  for  a  proper  reception  to  him. 

}  So  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Ephraem  Syrus,  Jer.,  Theodoret,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Origen, 
Rosenm.,  Mau.,  Hd.,  Reinke,  Ke.,  Isop.,  el  al.. 

§  Ki.,  Pres.,  Schegg,  Now.,  van  H.,  el  al..  **  Ra..  ft  AE.. 

U  Eichhom,  Theiner,  Hengstenberg.  §§  Dr..  •"  Or.. 


3'  63 

very  same  sort  of  work  that  is  assigned  to  "my  messenger"  here. 
But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  4^^-  is  a  later  addition 
{v.  i.) ;  and,  consequently,  is  not  a  reliable  index  to  the  thought 
of  our  prophet  upon  this  question.  No  sure  identification  of  "my 
messenger"  is  therefore  possible.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that 
the  prophet  had  no  specific  personality  in  mind. — And  suddenly 
•will  the  Lord  whom  you  are  seeking  come  to  his  temple]  The  title 
"Lord"  evidently  indicates  Yahweh  as  is  shown  by  the  additional 
statement  that  he  is  the  one  for  whose  appearance  the  people  are 
longing.*  His  coming,  notwithstanding  the  preparation  made 
for  it,  will  seem  sudden  and  unexpected.  For  the  same  attitude 
of  longing  for  the  coming  of  the  day  of  Yahweh,  cf.  Am.  5^8. — 
And  the  messenger  of  the  covenant  in  whom  ye  delight — behold,  he 
comes,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  This  "messenger"  can  hardly  be 
identical  with  the  forerunner,  viz.  "my  messenger,"  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  verse  ;t  for  his  coming  is  here  made  simultaneous  with 
that  of  "the  Lord,"  who  can  hardly  be  other  than  Yahweh  him- 
self, and  the  coming  of  "my  messenger"  is  explicitly  announced 
as  preceding  that  of  Yahweh.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely,  indeed, 
that  "  the  messenger  of  the  covenant"  is  here  confused  with  Yah- 
weh,! as  elsewhere  the  "messenger  of  Yahweh"  is  confused  with 
Yahweh;  e.  g.  Ju.  6"- 1^- 14. 15.  le.  20  133. 13  a.  2  S.  241^  2  K.  19^^; 
in  the  latter  two  passages  his  function  is  punitive  as  here.  This 
is  the  only  occurrence  of  the  title  "messenger  of  the  covenant." 
Consequently  it  is  impossibl.e  to  tell  what  the  exact  significance 
of  the  term  is.  Some  would  make  this  messenger  to  be  the  guar- 
dian angel  of  the  Jewish  community.!  Others  look  upon  him 
as  the  original  Baal-berith  worshipped  by  the  Shechemites 
(Ju.  8^3  94-  46)^  but  now  subordinated  to  Yahweh  as  one  of  his 
angels.**  The  specific  function  of  the  angel  here,  if  distinct  from 
that  of  Yahweh  himself,  is  not  indicated.    Nor  is  it  stated  what 

*  Du.'s  hypothesis  of  a  special  "lord  of  the  temple"  distinct  from  Yahweh  himself  is  gratu- 
itous. Du.  would  also  make  "  my  messenger,"  "the  Lord"  and  "the  messenger  of  the  covenant" 
to  be  all  one  and  the  same  person.  But  this  is  to  postpone  the  appearance  of  Yahweh  himself 
upon  the  scene  until  v. '  and  requires  him  to  do  over  again  the  very  same  work  as  that  already 
done  by  his  supposed  foreninner  in  v.  •. 

t  Contra  Hi.,  Mau.,  Marti,  Du.P'"-. 

X  So  Koh.,  Ke.,  We.,  Sm.  124,  Marti,  Dr.,  Isop.,  van  H.,  Hal..  * 

§  Kraetzschmar,  Bundesvorstellung  im  A.  T.,  237  Jf.. 

**  Gressmann,  Eschatologie,  202, 


64  MALACHI 

"covenant"  is  meant.  It  may  be  the  long-established  covenant 
between  Yahweh  and  Israel;  or  it  may  be  a  new  covenant  mark- 
ing the  opening  of  a  new  age.*  Grammatically,  the  antecedent  of 
the  relative  pronoun  might  be  either  "  messenger  of  the  covenant " 
or  "covenant"  itself.  But  in  view  of  the  parallel  phrase  "whom 
you  seek"  attached  to  "Lord,"  it  i^pca^ble  that  "in  whom  you 
delight"  describes  the  messen^eivjl-2.  And  who  can  endure  the 
day  of  his  coming  ?]  The  day  of  Yahweh  was  said  by  Amos  to  be 
a  day  of  "darkness  and  not  light;  even  very  dark  and  no  bright- 
ness in  it"  (5'") ;  and  by  Zephaniah  to  be  " a  day  of  wrath,  a  day 
of  trouble  and  distress,  a  day  of  wasteness  and  desolation"  (i^^). 
Malachi  presents  a  similar  view. — And  who  can  stand  when  he 
appears?]  Lit.  "who  will  be  the  one  standing  when,"  etc..  No- 
body will  be  able  to  hold  his  ground  before  the  dread  judge;  all 
will  lie  prostrate  and  powerless  before  him. — For  he  will  be  like 
a  refiner's  fire  and  like  fuller^s  soap]  The  processes  of  smelting 
and  washing  at  once  suggest  the  thought  of  purification,  rather 
than  total  destruction.  The  day  of  Yahweh  is  to  be  a  day  of 
judgment. — 3.  A^id  he  will  sit  as  a  refiner  and  cleanser]  M  adds 
"of  silver."  But  this  is  probably  due  to  dittography  from  a  fol- 
lowing line  or  to  a  gloss;  since  the  word  "cleanse"  is  hardly  ap- 
plied appropriately  to  the  purification  of  metals  and  is  nowhere 
else  so  used. — And  he  will  cleanse  the  sons  of  Levi]  This  is  the 
first  direct  mention  of  the  people  over  whom  the  judgment  will 
be  held.  Contrary  to  the  general  expectation,  the  chastisement 
and  purification  are  to  begin  with  that  section  of  the  community 
most  ostensibly  religious.  The  necessity  for  such  a  cleansing 
process  among  the  Levites  has  been  clearly  indicated  in  the  charges 
preferred  against  the  priesthood  in  i''-2'.  The  purifying  work 
will  begin  at  the  fountain-head  of  the  religious  life  of  Judah.  The 
religious  teachers  of  the  land  must  be  pure,  if  the  people  at  large 
are  to  become  pleasing  to  Yahweh. — And  he  will  refine  them  like 
gold  and  like  silver]  The  refining  of  precious  metals  by  the  pur- 
gation of  fire  is  intended  to  represent  the  most  thorough-going 
purification  conceivable. — And  they  will  become  for  Yahweh  those 
who  bring  near  an  offering  in  righteousness]  i.  e.  in  accordance  with 

*  Gressmann,  Eschatologie,  303. 


>2.5 


65 


all  the  requirements  of  the  ritual;  cf.  Ps.  51".  The  Levites,  who 
have  been  criminally  careless  in  the  conduct  of  the  sacrifices, 
will  henceforth  be  a  body  of  men  devoted  heart  and  soul  to  the 
proper  performance  of  the  sacrificial  ceremonial.  Cf.  i^-  "•  "  2*. 
Most  Roman  Catholic  scholars  regard  this  as  a  prediction  of  the 
offering  of  the  Eucharist. — 4.  And  the  offering  of  Judah  and  Je- 
rusalem will  be  pleasing  to  Yahweh  as  in  the  days  of  old  and  as  in 
former  years]  The  particular  period  to  which  reference  is  made 
cannot  be  known.  It  may  be,  indeed,  that  the  writer  is  simply 
reflecting  a  common  view  that  "the  good  old  times"  were  all 
that  could  be  desired,  whereas  the  present  age  leaves  everything 
to  be  desired.  Certain  it  is,  however,  that  not  since  tHe  days  of 
the  Conquest  had  Israel  been  pleasing  to  Yahweh,  according  to 
the  estimate  of  the  pre-exilic  prophets;  cf.  Ho.  ii*  Am.  3^  '• 
Mi.  3^1-  Is.  i^"  "•  Je.  721-26,  'pj^g  emphasis  placed  upon  sacrifice 
and  ritual  here  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  depreciation  of 
ritual  at  the  hands  of  the  earlier  prophets. — 5.  And  I  will  draw 
near  unto  you  for  judgment]  The  prophet,  speaking  in  Yahweh's 
person,  addresses  the  people  in  general.  The  day  of  Yahweh 
holds  little  comfort  for  them. — And  I  will  be  a  swift  witness  against 
the  sorcerers]  Sorcery  and  other  low  forms  of  religion  were  al- 
ways opposed  by  the  prophets  as  hated  by  Yahweh;  cf.  Ex.  7" 
22^^  Dt.  18^°  Lv.  2o2^  I  S.  152^  Dn.  22  "-.  Yet  such  practices  con- 
tinued in  vogue  among  the  people  down  to  the  end;  cf.  Acts  8' 
13^  and  Josephus,  Ant.  XX,  6  and  Wars,  II,  12,  23. — And  the 
adulterers]  This  epithet  may  describe  those  who  are  unfaithful 
to  Yahweh  in  that  they  give  themselves  to  the  worship  of  other 
gods  {cf.  Ho.  2-'-  Ez.  i6^^'-)>  but  more  probably  it  applies  to 
those  who  were  living  with  foreign  wives,  after  having  divorced 
their  native  Hebrew  wives;  cf.  2^*.  It  is  scarcely  probable  that 
unmitigated  adultery  was  so  prevalent  as  to  justify  its  being 
listed  as  one  of  the  chief  crimes  in  a  charge  like  this. — And 
against  those  swearing  to  falsehood]  Perjury  is  frequently  con- 
demned in  the  Old  Testament;  cf.  Lv.  1912  Je.  292^  Ex.  20^8 
Dt.  igi^  *•  231  Pr.  19^  {,  Those  who  have  hitherto  escaped  detec- 
tion will  now  be  pitilessly  exposed  and  punished. — And  against 
those  oppressing  the  hireling,  the  widow  and  the  fatherless]  These 


66  MALACHI 

classes  are  especial  objects  of  solicitude  in  the  Deuteronomic 
Code;  cf.  also  Ex.  22^^  '^.  Prophecy  always  stood  upon  the  side 
of  the  poor  and  the  weak,  and  represented  Yahweh  as  their  cham- 
pion; cf.  Am.  26  «•  8«  Mi.  2^  "•  3I  "•  Is.  5*.  By  this  threat,  the 
writer  puts  himself  in  line  with  his  great  prophetic  predecessors 
and  shows  his  concern  for  ethical  righteousness  as  an  essential 
element  in  religion,  over  and  above  ceremonial  purity  and  per- 
fection. The  fulfilment  of  one's  obligations  to  God  does  not  re- 
lease one  from  certain  obligations  to  his  fellow-men,  but  involves 
the  full  discharge  of  the  latter  as  well  as  the  former. — A  nd  against 
those  turning  aside  the  stranger]  i.  e.  from  justice;  cf.  Je.  7^  22' 
Ez.  22^  Zc.  7*".  The  stranger,  sojourner,  or  proselyte  was  es- 
pecially subject  to  wrong  because,  as  an  alien  in  the  community, 
he  had  few  friends  to  guard  his  interests  or  avenge  his  injuries. 
Therefore,  he  was  especially  protected  by  legislation;  cf.  Dt.  14^' 
2417  26'-  f-  2719  Ex.  20!"  2312  Lv.  iQio-  33  {•  2T,'^.—And  they  do  not 
fear  me,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  These  are  the  sins  which  Yahweh 
has  denounced  through  his  prophets  for  centuries.  Yet  the  Is- 
raelites have  acted  apparently  without  any  realisation  whatso- 
ever of  the  danger  of  incurring  Yahweh's  wrath  on  account  of 
their  failure  to  heed  the  word  of  Yahweh. — 6.  But  I,  Yahweh, 
have  not  changed;  therefore,  you,  O  sons  of  Jacob,  will  be  consumed] 
If  any  of  the  guilty  have  thought  that  Yahweh  has  lost  all  his 
interest  in  righteousness  and  goodness  (v.  2'^),  they  are  now  to 
be  completely  disabused  of  that  error.  The  moral  character  of 
Yahweh  remains  unchanged;  hence,  sinners  must  undergo  the 
punishment  they  so  richly  deserve.  This,  it  is  clear,  is  not  an 
abstract  proposition  that  Yahweh  cannot  change  in  any  respect 
(cf.  Heb.  13^  James  i^'))  but  simply  a  positive  afl&rmation  that  he 
has  not  changed  in  this  specific  particular.  The  nearest  approxi- 
mation in  the  Old  Testament  to  a  comprehensive,  theological 
statement  of  unchangeableness  is  Ps.  102-®  °- ;  cf.  Ps.  90'  '•  Dt. 
7,7,^''  Is.  57l^  M  has  the  negative  before  the  last  verb  here,  viz. 
"not  consumed."  But  this  hardly  satisfies  the  demands  of  the 
context,  the  sense  being  so  difficult  to  attain  on  that  basis  that 
several  interpreters  abandon  the  effort.*    Among  the  many  in- 

•  So  «;  g.  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Isop.. 


3«  67 

terpretations  of  M  that  have  been  offered,  attention  may  be 
called  to  three.  The  first  finds  here  the  thought  that  Israel  owes 
its  continued  existence,  notwithstanding  its  sins,  to  the  fact  that 
the  unchanging  purpose  of  Yahweh  to  be  merciful  must  be  ful- 
filled.* But  this  is  scarcely  the  kind  of  thought  to  be  expected 
at  the  close  of  such  an  arraignment  of  Israel's  sins.  If  Yahweh's 
unchangeable  purpose  to  be  merciful  has  protected  them  from 
his  righteous  wrath  thus  far,  why  should  it  not  continue  to  do  so 
indefinitely?  The  second  view  yields  the  sense,  "You,  O  sons  of 
Jacob,  cease  not  to  depart  from  evil."  f  But  this  calls  for  too 
much  from  the  imagination  of  the  reader,  besides  using  (173  in  an 
unusual  sense.  The  third  interpretation  is,  "You,  O  sons  of 
Jacob,  have  not  come  to  an  end,"  i.  e.  "You  are  still  sons  of 
Jacob,  the  deceiver  and  trickster."  J  This,  however,  involves 
making  the  writer  say  in  very  obscure  terms  what  he  might  easily 
and  safely  have  said  with  the  greatest  plainness.  Nothing  less 
than  a  clear  threat  of  punishment  will  satisfy  this  context. 

2".  D.'ij'Jin]  d  ol  irapo^^vovres.  B  literally,  laborare  fecislis.  Siev. 
om.  niT«  and  reads,  uinjjjin. — '1  'JU'^l  Marti  and  Siev.  om.  as  gloss. 
— I'on  Nin  Dnai]  B  freely,  et  tales  ei  placent.  Marti  and  Siev.  om.  as  gloss. 
The  only  considerations  in  support  of  the  omission  of  this  and  the  fore- 
going phrases  are  (i)  the  obstacle  they  present  to  a  poetic  structure; 
(2)  the  fact  that  they  employ  the  3d  pers.  with  reference  to  Yahweh. 
But  no  poetic  measure  can  be  legitimately  recovered  here  and  inter- 
changes of  person  in  prophetic  address  are  very  common. — 3'.  on'^c] 
The  name  given  to  our  prophet  in  i '  was  probably  borrowed  from  this 
verse  by  an  editor  who  identified  the  messenger  here  spoken  of  with  this 
prophet;  v.  n.  on  i>. — •'JsSj  Eth.  T}.^!/,  so  Matt.  11'°. — V'Mi^  iSd^h]  Bu. 
jnn  iSth.  This  is  an  attempt  to  do  away  with  the  apparent  confusion 
of  "the  Lord"  with  "the  messenger  of  the  covenant";  but  it  fails  be- 
cause the  supposititious  "judge"  could  be  none  other  than  Yahweh 
himself;  and  so  the  confusion  remains. — tn""2i]  Sta.'^^*°'- 1,  133  /.,  l!?i;\ 
— ni-ijn]  Hi.  n^l^n,  rendering  "angel  of  purification";  but  nnb  never 
has  the  abstract  meaning  "purification,"  but  always  the  concrete 
"soap"  or  "lye,"  which  is  ludicrously  inept  as  appHed  to  an  "angel." — 
2.  SjSd;:]  B  potent  cogitare. — ^xin  13]  (^  adds  elcriropeveTai;  hence  Bu. 
adds  N13;  and  Riessler  n3. — I'^sn]  Riessler,  nixn  =  "a  furnace";  cf.  (6 
XtavevTTiplov;  but  the  parallel  "fullers"  is  in  favour  of  a  personal  epithet 
here. — "^-^^si]  (&  iroia;  cf.  "B  kerba.  These  renderings  point  to  the 
•  So  K.e.,  Dr.,  e<  a/..  t  Pres.,  «/ a/..  t  Or.,  Kent.,  el  al„ 


68  MALACHI 

origin  of  'a  from  certain  alkaline  plants,  the  ashes  of  which  are  used  as 
soap  in  the  Orient  even  at  the  present  day.  '2  occurs  again  only  in 
Je.  2";  it  is  formed  from  113;  cf.  Assy,  bardrii  =  "shine." — 3.  au^i]  & 
=  arM.  The  refiner  of  silver  naturally  sits  at  his  work,  since  the 
perfection  of  the  process  is  marked  by  the  colour  of  the  molten  metal, 
which  he  must  therefore  watch  at  close  range;  cf.  ncy  in  Mi.  5'. — 
HDd]  Om.  as  dittog.  from  below;  so  We.,  GASm.,  Now.,  Marti,  Siev., 
Isop.,  Kent.  Bu.  emends  to  nd?  or  Ncra,  depending  upon  3C'\  d  wj 
rh  dpyvpiov  Kal  us  t6  xp^o'^o";  hence  Riessler,  anni  iDr?,  But  this  is 
only  free  expansion. — fipj]  aiir,  in  Pi'el.  Pathah  instead  of  sere  between 
the  two  identical  harsh  radicals.  (&  x*"-  B  colabit.  &  he  will  select. 
— rtyn^h]  Bu.  •'':;  so  Now.*^.  Marti,  Siev.,  Kent,  om.  as  gloss. — 4.  mri''?] 
Bu.  ^'?;  so  Now.'^;  Siev.  om.  as  gloss. — 5.  o^'oa'Dc]  Hal.  cajas;  so 
Riessler. — a^osja]  Wkl.  d^'cjc  =  another  class  of  sorcerers;  but  no  such 
class  is  known  to  have  existed. — D^;?3rj]  (I  and  8  codd.  of  de  R.  with 
16  of  Kenn.  add  ''cu'a. — iptt''?]  Wkl.  om.  as  gloss. — t?c]  Om.  as  dittog., 
with  We.,  Oort,  Now.,  Marti,  Bu.,  Siev.,  Isop.,  van  H.,  Du.,  Kent,  'tf 
cannot  well  be  the  object  of  p"";*,  for  this  verb  everywhere  else  has  a 
personal  object.  Mi.  2^  is  no  true  exception  to  this  usage,  for  the  real 
objects  of  ps^v  there  are  "i3j  and  s^'n,  no  and  inSnj  being  of  secondary 
importance  and  attached  to  'y  by  zeugma.  Riessler  tr.  and  reads  Tstf 
Tjt',  which  is  a  good  reading,  but  burdens  I'sb'  with  a  limitation  such 
as  is  not  found  with  the  parallel  objects  of  'j?,  viz.  hjoSk  and  air\  Wkl. 
treats  'c  as  dittog.  of  a  corrupt  word,  the  original  of  which  was  T^^r, 
which  preceded  "'OD,  corrupted  from  na?. — nja'^x]  (&  Kal  roiis  KaraSv- 
vaffrevovras  x'^P"-"',  hence  Riessler,  '.v  'J^o.  &  =  hjt'^ni  dip'I  "\ji,  thus 
adding  another  class. — aiP'i]  (B  ical  tovs  KovSvXL^ovras  6p<pavo6s;  hence, 
Riessler,  oin>  ^onni.  But  such  renderings  in  ($  are  free  translations, 
and  call  for  no  change  of  text. — nj]  (S  Kpiaiv  irpoa-ijX^rov;  hence  Bu., 
Kent,  and  Riessler,  -ij  a?^'?.  But  "iJ  itself  may  well  be  the  object  of 
'Bc;  cf.  Am.  5'=  Is.  10=  29-'. — 6.  o]  Now.,  Siev.  om.  as  a  connecting 
gloss. — 111']  '$  adds  a^'i^'N;  so  also  Riessler.  That  ''  is  not  the  pred- 
icate of  ':n,  but  in  apposition  with  it  as  the  subj.  of  '•^'•K',  is  shown  by 
the  structure  of  the  parallel  clause  in  which  art*  and  2py  ''J3  must  be 
taken  as  appositives. — an^^D  n'^]  Om.  n*?  as  dittog.  from  the  preceding 
or  the  following  n'^.  The  same  result  would  be  secured  if  we  could 
regard  n^  as  an  emphatic  la  =  "you  will  surely  be  destroyed";  cf. 
Haupt,  in  Orientalistische  Lilteraliir-Zeitimg,  for  1907,  col.  305  Jff.,  on  this 
use  of  n''.  (gB».  b  ov/c  dTr4xf(r6e,  and  joins  the  first  two  words  of  v.' 
with  it,  rendering  them  "from  the  iniquities  of  your  fathers."  (6^ 
a.triffxi<^6e.  (S^'  airh<xde.  %  you  have  not  refrained  from  your  iniq- 
uity; this  addition  can  hardly  be  due  to  (8,  for  it  leaves  a  part  of  (S's 
rendering,  viz.  "of  your  fathers,"  without  any  connection.  It  is  prob- 
ably due  simply  to  the  effort  of  ft  to  obtain  sense  here.    Or.  an-S;  «''; 


so  GASm.,  Bu.,  van  H..  But  this  requires  an  object  to  complete  the 
sense.  Riessler,  op^^^d  nSi.  Hal.  iS  ar^^^D  nS,  =  "you  have  not  lan- 
guished after  him"  {cf.  Dt.  28^2),  borrowing  1'^  from  the  ':'  of  v.';  but 
the  change  of  pers.  is  too  violent.  Siev.  ah-1'72,  dropping  n':';  so  Now.^(?) 
]Marti'^''"(?);  but  this  is  too  tame.  Marti'^^"-  also  suggests  drop- 
ping nS  and  reading  d:S;;  cf.  Du.''™-  DsSa  >S;  /.  e.  "but  you — sons  of 
Jacob  are  3'ou  all  (to  me)."  In  addition  to  the  improbability  of 
confusion  between  3  and  n,  this  reading  fails  to  provide  a  sufficiently 
strong  finish  for  the  sentence. 


§  6.     THE  PAYMENT   OF  TITHES   WINS  THE 
BLESSING  OF  GOD  (3^12). 

The  prophet  takes  up  still  another  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the 
free  outpouring  of  Yahweh's  grace  toward  Israel.  Israel  has 
been  unwilling  to  pay  the  price  of  his  favour.  Let  the  tithes  and 
offerings  be  brought  in  to  the  full  and  showers  of  blessings  will 
fall  upon  the  land.  The  crops  will  be  abundant  and  the  land  of 
Israel  will  become  the  en\y  of  all  the  peoples. 

7.  Even  from  the  days  of  your  fathers  you  have  revolted  from  my 
statutes  and  have  not  kept  them]  The  period  covered  by  this  in- 
dictment includes  at  least  the  lifetime  of  the  prophet's  hearers 
up  to  the  time  of  this  address.  It  probably  reaches  back  also 
into  the  previous  generation  and,  possibly,  even  further.  For  a 
similar  attitude  toward  the  past  on  the  part  of  other  prophets, 
V.  Ho.  io9  Je.  7"^-  253-^  Ez.  2^  20^-26  Is.  432^.  The  "statutes" 
include,  in  general,  everything  that  has  come  to  be  regarded  as 
an  expression  of  the  will  of  Yahweh.  In  particular,  the  reference 
is  probably  to  the  provisions  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  under 
which  Israel  was  living  in  this  prophet's  day.  One  outstanding 
illustration  of  the  kind  of  conduct  here  resented  is  furnished  by  the 
following  verse.  Return  unto  me,  that  I  may  return  unto  you, 
says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  So  also  Zc.  i^  Repentance  and  conversion 
will  forestall  the  destructive  punishment  threatened  in  v.  *.  Yah- 
weh waits  to  be  gracious  unto  his  people ;  but  the  exercise  of  his 
grace  is  conditioned  upon  a  proper  attitude  of  mind  and  heart  on 
the  part  of  the  would-be  recipients. — A  nd  you  say,  How  shall  we 
return?]  As  before,  the  people  are  represented  as  challenging  the 


70  MALACHI 

prophet  to  substantiate  his  charge  by  citing  particulars.  The 
question  is  not  bond  fide,  but  a  virtual  declaration  of  innocence. 
It  calls  for  facts. — 8.  Will  man  rob  God  ?]  To  ask  the  question, 
in  the  prophet's  mind,  is  to  answer  it.  A  reply  in  the  negative 
seems  to  him  the  only  possible  one.  ($  B*  reflect  a  text  which  had 
the  verb  "  cheat "  instead  of  "  rob  "  in  all  three  occurrences  within 
this  verse;  the  difference  between  the  two  in  Hebrew  is  very 
slight.  But  the  statement  that  follows  is  much  more  easy  as 
in  M,  since  one  may  in  a  certain  sense  "rob"  God,  as  it  is  there 
stated  Israel  has  done;  but  it  is  not  possible  to  "deceive"  or 
"cheat"  him,  and  our  prophet  would  hardly  represent  it  as  pos- 
sihle.— Yet  you  are  robbing  me]  That  which  one  can  scarcely 
conceive  as  possible  of  contemplation  by  men,  Israel  is  actually 
doing.  The  foregoing  question  was  set  in  general  terms,  viz. 
"man"  and  "God";  the  accusation  is  direct  and  personal  in 
the  highest  degree,  viz.  "you"  and  "me." — But  you  say,  Wherein 
have  we  robbed  thee?]  This  question  demands  and  receives  a 
specific  answer.  The  prophet  does  not  content  himself  with 
hazy  and  indefinite  generalisations. — In  the  lithe  and  the  ojfcr- 
ing]  In  the  midst  of  hard  times  such  as  those  through  which 
the  Jewish  community  was  passing,  it  requires  much  faith  and 
loyalty  to  keep  up  the  payment  of  the  regular  religious  dues. 
The  common  experience  is  that  when  receipts  decrease,  or  ex- 
penses increase  with  no  accompanying  increase  of  income,  the 
first  thing  to  suffer  is  the  cause  of  religion.  Its  needs  seem  more 
remote  and  less  pressing  than  the  necessities  of  food,  raiment, 
housing,  education,  and  the  like,  which  arc  ever  with  us.  This 
cause,  together  with  a  general  decline  of  religious  fervour  that 
was  directly  due  to  the  fact  that  the  community  as  a  whole  was 
unable  to  see  wherein  zeal  for  Yahweh  was  yielding  any  returns 
in  terms  of  prosperity  and  influence,  had  brought  about  a  serious 
diminution  in  tithes  and  offerings,  which  the  prophet  does  not 
hesitate  to  brand  as  robbery.  The  Deuteronomic  law  regarding 
tithes  (14-'^-'  26'' ■'■'^)  provided  for  an  annual  tithe  "of  thy  grain, 
thy  new  wine  and  of  thine  oil,"  which  was  to  be  brought  to  Jeru- 
salem along  with  the  firstlings  of  the  herd  and  the  flock  and  to 
be  eaten  at  the  temple  by  the  givers  and  the  Levites.    It  also 


38.»  71 

arranged  for  a  triennial  tithe,  which  was  to  be  stored  "within 
thy  gates,"  in  order  that  the  Levite,  the  stranger,  the  fatherless 
and  the  widow  might  draw  subsistence  therefrom.  Neither  of 
these  requirements  accords  fully  with  the  prophet's  charge  and 
demand,  since  the  former  contemplates  no  such  storage  of  the 
tithe  as  is  implied  in  v,  i";  and  the  latter  calls  for  the  storage  of 
the  tithe  in  the  various  cities,  while  v.  i"  again  evidently  conceives 
of  it  as  stored  in  Jerusalem  only.  The  prophet's  presuppositions 
are  best  met  by  the  tithing  law  of  the  Priestly  Code,  viz.  Lv.  27^*"- 
Nu.  18^1-^1,  which  requires  the  whole  tithe  to  be  given  to  the 
priesthood  (viz.  the  Levites  and  the  priests  proper)  i.  e.  to  Yah- 
weh,  and  apparently  implies  that  it  should  all  be  brought  to  the 
temple.  This  concord  between  Malachi  and  P  does  not  neces- 
sarily involve  dating  Malachi  after  the  adoption  of  the  P  code 
in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  For  it  is  an  established  fact 
that  the  code  in  question  contains  many  laws  and  customs  which 
were  in  force  long  before  the  code  itself  was  formulated.  Thus, 
Malachi's  demands  regarding  the  tithe  may  well  have  been  based 
upon  a  usage  that  had  grown  up  in  Israel,  but  had  not  yet  found 
its  place  in  a  formal  code  of  laws.  In  the  days  of  Nehemiah, 
the  people  pledged  themselves  to  pay  the  tithes  exactly  as  Mala- 
chi here  presupposes  they  should  (Ne.  lo^^"-);  but  the  pledge 
was  quickly  forgotten  and  the  tithe  allowed  to  go  by  default  as 
here  (Ne.  13^°  °-)- — 9-  With  a  curse  you  are  accursed]  i.  c.  be- 
cause of  Israel's  sins,  the  land  and  people  lie  under  the  curse  of 
Yahweh  which  frustrates  all  their  eflforts  and  brings  to  nought 
all  their  hopes;  cf.  2^.  For  other  examples  of  the  operation  of 
the  curse  of  Yahweh,  cf.  Hg.  i^^  «•  Zc.  51-"  Lv.  26"-''''  Dt.  22>^^-^\ 
— For  me  you  are  robbing]  The  emphasis  is  on  me,  the  intent 
being  to  impress  strongly  upon  those  addressed  the  fact  that  it 
is  God  whom  they  are  robbing  and  thus  arousing  to  wrath.  It 
is  bad  to  rob  men;  how  much  worse  to  rob  God! — This  whole  na- 
tion] A  phrase  pointing  out  those  included  in  the  address.  The 
sins  denounced  are  confined  to  no  one  class,  but  are  characteristic 
of  the  community  as  a  whole. — 10.  Bring  tlie  whole  tithe  into  the 
storehouse]  The  form  of  the  behest  suggests,  not  that  the  tithe 
had  been  allowed  to  go  wholly  by  default,  but  that  it  had  not 


72  MALACHI 

l)een  paid  in  full.  This  may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
people  as  a  whole  had  each  kept  back  part  of  his  tithe,  deeming 
that  he  needed  it  worse  than  the  priests  did,  or  to  the  fact  that 
large  numbers  of  them  had  ceased  tithing  altogether,  while  the 
faithful  pious  were  denying  themselves  in  order  that  they  might 
meet  their  religious  obligations  in  full.  For  the  storehouse  in 
question,  v.  No.  lo''*  '■  12''^  13^-  ^^  2  Ch.  31"  "•. — That  there  may 
be  food  in  my  house]  I.  e.  food  for  the  priesthood.  The  more 
common  meaning  of  the  word  rendered  "food"  is  "prey"  {cj. 
Am.  3^  Gn.  49'  Nu.  23^');  but  the  rendering  "food"  is  supported 
by  Jb.  24^  Pr.  311*  Ps.  11 1^ — A^id  test  me,  I  pray,  herein,  says 
Yahweh  of  hosts]  The  thought  that  Yahweh  may  be  subjected 
to  specific  tests  in  order  that  the  truth  of  his  promises  may  be 
verified  prevailed  in  Israel  from  the  earliest  times  till  the  latest ;  of. 
Ju.  63«-«  Ex.  41-9 1  K.  i822  <f-  Is.  710  »•  Je.  28'^  «•.  That  the  prophet 
should  condition  the  bestowal  of  Yahweh 's  favour  upon  the 
payment  of  the  tithe  alone  is  surprising.  To  be  sure,  this  act 
would  in  itself  indicate  a  change  of  attitude  toward  God,  without 
which  there  could  be  no  manifestation  of  his  favour.  Nevertheless, 
the  prophet's  conception  of  the  nature  of  rehgion  is  CAddently 
less  ethical  and  spiritual  than  that  of  his  great  predecessors,  viz. 
Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah.  It  is  inconceivable  that 
they  could  have  represented  Yahweh  as  contented  with  the  per- 
formance of  any  single  act,  least  of  all  one  in  the  sphere  of  ritual. 
— Surely  I  will  open  for  you  the  sluices  of  the  heavens]  i.  e.  send 
down  abundant  rains.  This  is  the  apodosis  to  the  protasis  im- 
plied in  the  preceding  imperatives.  For  figures  representative 
of  exactly  the  opposite  idea,  cf.  Dt.  11"  Lv.  26^'.  The  heavens 
open  to  rain  down  destruction  in  Gn.  7"  Is.  24^^,  but  blessings  in 
Dt.  28'-  and  2  K.  7--  ",  in  the  latter  of  which  passages  is  the 
only  other  occurrence  of  the  figure  "sluices"  or  "windows"  in 
the  heavens.  Evidently  the  land  has  been  suffering  from  drought 
and  consequent  failure  of  crops,  as  implied  in  v. ",  which  the 
prophet  interprets  as  due  to  the  curse  of  Yahweh.  Regular 
tithes  each  year  will  bring  regular  and  full  crops.  The  triennial 
tithe  of  Deuteronomy  hardly  satisfies  the  requirements  of  this 
situation. — And  I  will  pour  out  for  you  a  blessing  until  there  is  no 


310.12  ^3 

more  need]  There  is  unlimited  abundance  of  blessings  in  the  store- 
house of  Yahweh.  Israel's  failure  to  receive  them  is  due  solely 
to  her  failure  to  deserve  them.  The  last  clause  of  this  sentence 
has  been  translated  and  interpreted  in  a  variety  of  ways,  e.  g.  (i) 
until  there  are  not  enough  people  to  eat  the  abundance;  (2) 
until  God  has  no  more  abundance  left  from  which  to  bestow 
blessings,  i.  e.  for  ever;*  (3)  until  sufficiency  has  no  place,  i.  e. 
more  than  enough  ;t  (4)  until  there  is  no  more  room,  scil.  to  con- 
tain the  blessings;  I  (5)  until  there  is  no  proportion  to  your  needs, 
i.  e.  beyond  measure.§  These  all,  however,  yield  the  same  gen- 
eral sense  and  it  is  that  which  is  clearly  demanded  by  the  con- 
text.— 11.  And  I  will  rebuke  the  devourer  for  you,  so  that  he  will 
not  destroy  the  fruit  of  the  ground  for  you]  Locusts  are  probably 
meant.  They  constituted  one  of  the  most  terrible  pests  that 
beset  the  farmer's  crops.**  The  "for  you"  is  not  emphatic  either 
time. — Nor  will  the  vine  in  the  field  cast  its  grapes  for  you,  says  Yah- 
weh of  hosts]  i.  e.  by  reason  of  mildew  or  blasting;  cf.  Jb.  15''. 
The  notable  thing  about  this  entire  description  of  the  manifes- 
tation of  Yahweh's  favour  is  the  fact  that  the  only  blessings  men- 
tioned are  those  of  a  material  character,  just  as  in  Am.  9"!^ 
The  ethical  note  is  wholly  lacking.  The  prophet  meets  the  peo- 
ple on  their  own  level.  They  have  lost  faith  in  Yahweh  because 
they  do  not  see  the  only  kind  of  proof  of  his  power  and  love  that 
they  can  appreciate,  viz.  riches  and  power  for  themselves.  The 
prophet,  therefore,  assures  them  in  Yahweh's  name  that  the 
only  way  in  which  they  can  obtain  these  things  is  by  conforming 
to  the  requirements  of  Yahweh  in  the  payment  of  his  dues.  This 
being  done,  he  will  abundantly  repay  them  in  kind. — 12.  And 
all  the  nations  will  call  you  blessed]  Israel  will  be  the  en\y  of  all 
the  peoples  because  of  this  outpouring  of  Yahweh's  favour.  No 
blessing  that  failed  to  set  Israel  on  high  among  the  nations  could 
be  considered  complete.  This  is  the  finishing  touch  to  the  pic- 
ture of  happiness, — For  you  ivill  be  a  land  of  delight,  says  Yahweh 
of  hosts]  The  present  lamentable  conditions  will  give  place  to 

•  De  Dieu,  Rosenm.,  Hesselberg,  Ges.  {Thesaurus,  p.  334),  BDB.,  et  al.. 

t  Hd.,  et  al..  t  Ki-.  Hi-,  Ew.,  Reinke,  Koh.,  et  al..  §  Van  H., 

••  V.  Dr.'s  excursus  on  locusts  in  his  Joel  and  Amos,  82-91. 


74  MALACHI 

those  that  will  leave  nothing  to  be  desired.  Similar  idealisations 
of  Israel  and  Palestine  are  found  in  Is.  54'^  '■  62''  Ez.  20^-  ^^^  Zc.  7'^ 
8i»-23  Ps.  482  Dn.  39  11I6. 

7.  'D''dS]  (6  dw6  Twv  aSiKiQv,  connecting  it  with  v. «,  Hence,  Bu. 
n^jijD,  and  Riessler  ■'sid';',  both  joining  it  to  v. ',  The  use  of  S  before 
jc,  denoting  the  terminus  a  quo  is  common;  e.  g.  Ju.  19"  2  S.  7'^  Je.  7' 
428  Mi.  7'2,  The  function  of  S  is  to  mark  the  expression  unmistakably 
as  a  terminus,  JdV  being  practically  =  "back  to  and  from." — a3\-ii3N] 
Du.*""-  D513N,  i.  e.  Jacob;  but  this  is  wholly  unnecessary,  even  though 
it  would  furnish  a  firmer  basis  for  the  reading  of  <&  in  v.  *. — a.-n::^] 
Rd.  D:n-jCK',  with  We.,  Oort,  Now.,  Isop.,  Du.^™-.  &  =  onync;  so 
also  Kenn,  93.  Marti  om.  'a*  kSi  as  a  gloss.  Siev.  adds  >rn.r:c'D,  as  ob- 
ject of  'z',  omitting  the  foil,  's  '•>  idn]  as  a  gloss,  and  treating  the  whole 
verse  as  a  later  addition. — 8.  Marti  and  Now.*^  tr.  the  first  clause  to  the 
beginning  of  v. '  mtr.  cs.;  but  no  other  consideration  favours  the  change 
and  metre  cannot  be  demonstrated  here. — >'3|"i\n]  (5  /i^Tt  nrepvie?  = 
3|ij;\n;  so  also  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Siev.,  Isop.,  Du.^''°-,  Riessler.  ^  ren- 
ders the  two  foil,  forms  of  this  verb  in  the  same  way,  and  is  followed 
by  the  same  group  of  scholars.  Aq.  S  6,  dTroerTepijo-et,  which  is  a 
suitable  rendering  of  either  text.  H  si  affiget  supports  M,  being  based 
upon  a  Syr.  root  >'2p.  &  wrong  or  defraud  =  (S.  iop  occurs  again 
only  in  Pr.  22^3,  where  either  "rob"  or  "defraud"  suits  the  context. 
The  meaning  "rob"  rests  upon  Jewish  tradition.  Nothing  more  spe- 
cific is  known  about  the  root;  but  the  mere  fact  that  the  precise 
meaning  of  a  word  is  unknown  is  in  itself  insufficient  reason  for  chang- 
ing the  text  in  a  literature  so  limited  as  the  Hebrew.  The  only  known 
cognates  are  Assy.  ^eJjJ,  "speak";  Syr.  y^P,  "fasten,"  or  "fix";  Ar. 
qaba'a,  "cover,"  "draw  in  the  head,"  etc.  These  yield  no  aid.  Not 
much  stress  may  be  laid  on  the  fact  that  3py  would  furnish  a  pun  on 
apy  ''J3  of  V.  ^;  for  close  connection  between  the  two  verses  is  broken  by 
v. '  and,  furthermore,  Mai.  is  not  characterised  by  any  effort  after  par- 
onomasia.— n:;nnni  ni:'>'c."i]  Best  treated  as  depending  upon  3  carried 
over  from  the  previous  question,  or  as  an  ace.  of  specification;  cf. 
Pr.  22".  But  Marti  treats  it  as  an  e.xclamation,  viz.  "tithe  and  offer- 
ing— how  about  them?";  and  Or.  takes  it  as  a  nominative,  viz.  "the 
tithe  and  offering  (scil.  are  your  offences  against  God)."  (6  =  because 
the  tithes  and  offerings  are  "with  you;  hence  Bu.  prefixes  030?  ^3  (so  also 
Now.^  and  Marti*^"*"),  and  Riessler  033. — nsnn]  Associated  with  the 
tithe  also  in  Dt.  12"  Ne.  10"  12".  According  to  Ez.  44'",  every  '.1 
belonged  to  the  priests.  A  typical  'n  is  prescribed  in  Ez.  45"-'^  The 
word  denotes,  literally,  "that  which  is  raised  up"  {soil,  from  a  larger 
portion).    It  is  then  set  apart  for  Yahweh  and  his  priests.    Its  earliest 


3^-^^  75 

use  was  of  the  products  of  the  soil  as  offered  to  Yahweh.  Later,  it  came 
to  cover  almost  any  kind  of  materials  offered  specifically  to  Yahweh  for 
the  use  of  his  priesthood.  In  Nu.  iS-^  it  designates  the  tithe  itself  and 
in  iS'^'^--^,  that  portion  of  the  tithe  which  was  given  to  the  priests  proper. 
The  tithe  and  'n  together  constituted  a  large  element  in  the  maintenance 
of  the  temple  staff  of  priests  and  Levites. — 9.  anxj  onx  mxca]  ®  diro- 
^X^wovres  vfieTs  dTro^X^Trere,  deriving  it  from  nxn.  51  et  dissimitlantes 
vos  dissimulastis.  II  et  in  penuria  vos  maledicti  estis.  The  Niph.  prtc. 
QiiNj  sharpens  the  first  consonant  rather  than  the  second;  v.  Ges.  ^^ "  ". 
— iSo  ^ijn]  (g  t6  %tos  <7vveTe\i<T0nj;  so  d,  but  joining  it  to  v. '".  <S^* 
(Bfos.  ^  joins  with  v. '"  as  a  vocative.  Schulte,  in  Theolog.  Quart d- 
schrift  for  1895,  p.  228,  reads  -iSs  D'DjHj  and  joins  it  with  v. '".  Now.'^ 
om.  as  a  gloss.  Siev.  treats  the  whole  verse  as  a  later  addition.  Massora 
magna  notes  that  iS|  in  Je.,  Ez.,  and  Minor  Prophets  (aside  from  this 
passage  and  Je.  6")  is  always  written  n'yr;  whereas,  in  the  remaining 
books  ■h:  is  found,  except  in  2  S.  2^  Is.  15'  I6^ — 10.  iNian]  Riessler, 
iN^ani. — •«n'i]  Riessler,  r\^r\''\ — q-iD]  (5  =  lijia. — ••n-'aa]  <&^  =  in'«33. 
(gsc.dY  HP.  23,  49,  E  *"  =  aD'n33.— >:ijn3i]  (5bx»q  iTntTKifacrde. 
(gsc.bYHeid.  jjP.  95,  185,  eTTtcTTp^i/'aTe,  probably  an  error  for  iirirp^- 
fare.  Aq.  6  =  M. — 'x  '■>  -\cn]  Marti,  Siev.,  Now.'^  om.  as  gloss. — 
nS  on]  This  may  be  construed  as  introducing  either  an  indirect  ques- 
tion depending  upon  •'juna;  or  a  condition  with  an  implied  apodosis, 
making  it  the  strongest  form  of  afiirmation;  r/.  Ges.  ^^ "'^  Owing  to 
the  interruption  wrought  by  's  ''  noN,  the  latter  construction  is,  on  the 
whole,  the  easier. — noij]  Riessler,  ^73"\3. — n  '':'3  t;]  (6  ?ws  toO  iKavw- 
0TJvai.  B  nsqiie  ad  abnndantiam.  S>  S  until  you  say,  It  is  enough.  M 
literally  =  "until  there  is  no  sufficiency."  But  "sufficiency"  and 
"need"  are  closely  related  ideas,  and  in  such  passages  as  Ob.  ^  Pr.  25'^ 
Na.  2"  Lv.  252*,  the  latter  idea  seems  the  nearer  to  the  sense  of  •'-^. 
Thus  the  rendering  "until  there  is  no  need"  is  probable  here,  and  it 
makes  no  such  demands  upon  the  imagination  as  does  any  rendering 
based  upon  the  meaning  "sufficiency." — 11.  t^/J]  (B  Siaa-TeXd  =  v-'jnj, 
or  Tijnj. — 33*^]  Dat.  commodi  and  in  the  two  foil,  cases,  dat.  incommodi. 
Marti  om.  the  2d  and  3d  as  glosses.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  one  of 
them  may  be  due  to  dittog.  or  to  a  glossator. — n''nr']  (6  =  ninu's*. — 
^yi'?]  '-y  in  the  Pi'el  commonly  means  "make  childless";  it  is  applied 
to  the  products  of  the  soil  only  here  and  in  2  K.  2". — 12.  c^n]  Added 
for  emphasis. — Marti  om.  v.  '^  as  a  later  addition  because  of  its  attitude 
toward  the  heathen  world.  But  Mai.  contains  nothing  elsewhere  which 
renders  it  unlikely  that  this  prophet  regarded  his  own  people  as 
favoured  above  the  nations  at  large  in  the  eyes  of  Yahweh;  cj.  n.  on  i". 


76  MALACHI 

§    7.     THE   FINAL   TRIUMPH   OF   THE   RIGHTEOUS 

(313-46). 

The  prophet  first  sets  forth  the  doubts  that  have  troubled 
the  pious  regarding  the  value  of  their  piety  in  Yahweh's  eyes. 
The  facts  of  experience  seem  to  tell  against  the  profitableness  of 
godliness  (3'^'^'').  He  then  assures  the  pious  that  Yahweh  has 
not  forgotten  them,  but  intends  to  treat  them  with  a  father's 
love  in  the  great  day  of  judgment  that  is  coming.  They  will 
then  realise  fully  the  distinction  that  Yahweh  makes  between 
the  godly  and  the  ungodly  (3"^"^^).  For,  in  that  day,  the  wicked 
will  be  wholly  consumed,  like  stubble  in  the  flames,  whereas 
the  pious  will  rejoice  exceedingly  and  will  triumph  gloriously 
over  their  enemies  (4^"^).  The  book  closes  with  a  note  of  warning 
regarding  the  Law  and  an  explanatory  gloss  concerning  the  day 
of  Yahweh  (4^-«). 

13.  Your  words  have  been  stout  against  me,  says  Yahweh]  The 
address  is  to  Yahweh- worshippers  who  have  begun  to  lose  faith 
and  are  in  danger  of  apostacy  from  Yahweh,  as  is  evident  from 
vv."f-.  The  verb  "be  stout"  is  used,  in  the  intensive  form,  in 
the  sense  "make  stubborn"  or  "obstinate,"  in  Ex.  4^1  Je.  5^ — 
But  you  say,  Wherein  have  we  talked  against  thee?]  A  question 
not  in  good  faith,  but  implying  denial  of  the  prophet's  charge 
and  challenging  him  to  furnish  proof;  cf.  i^-  ^  2"  3^-  ^.  The 
form  of  the  verb  indicates  "talking  together";  i.  e.  Yahweh's 
ways  have  been  the  object  of  criticism  in  conversational  circles. 
The  same  usage  occurs  in  v.  ^"^  Ez.  t,^^^  Ps.  119^^. — 14.  You  say, 
It  is  useless  to  serve  God,  and  what  profit  is  it  that  we  have  kept  his 
charge  and  that  we  have  walked  in  mourning  before  Yahweh  of  hosts  ?] 
This  same  attitude  of  mind  has  received  direct  consideration 
from  our  prophet  twice  before,  viz.  i^"-  2^^.  It  was  evidently  a 
note  characteristic  of  the  thinking  of  the  times.  It  is  the  sign  of 
a  commercial  type  of  piety.  If  Yahweh  receives  the  gifts,  obe- 
dience and  worship  of  his  people,  it  is  incumbent  upon  him  to 
make  liberal  returns  in  the  form  of  material  prosperity,  political 
influence  and  supremacy,  and  the  like.    If  such  things  are  not 


3^-16  77 

forthcoming,  why  worship  him?  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  prophet 
apparently  accepts  this  standard  of  value  for  religion.  He  makes 
no  attempt  to  substitute  any  other;  but  satisfies  himself  either 
with  pointing  out  that  Israel  has  not  fulfilled  the  necessary  con- 
ditions, having  been  careless  of  her  obligations  toward  Yahweh, 
or  with  asserting  confidently  that  the  time  of  reward  has  not  yet 
come,  but  is  due  in  the  immediate  future.  "  His  charge  "  is  prac- 
tically equivalent  to  "his  commands"  or  "statutes";  it  refers 
to  religious  duties  in  general  and  is  not  to  be  identified  with 
any  specifically  rituaHstic  obligations;  cf.  Gn.  26^  Zc.  3^  Israel 
claims  to  have  done  her  best  to  render  Yahweh  full  obedience 
and,  if  at  any  point  there  has  been  a  lack,  atonement  has  been 
made  for  it  by  a  life  of  sorrow  and  penance.  "In  mourning" 
probably  refers  primarily  to  the  outer  garb  and  manner  {cf. 
2  S.  192^  Ps.  3513  ^-  2)^^  Jb.  3o2»),  but  does  not  exclude  a  genuine 
inner  grief.  In  the  period  to  which  our  prophet  belonged,  as 
Wellhausen  well  says,  piety  and  sorrow  were  constant  compan- 
ions.— 15.  And  now — we  are  deeming  the  arrogant  fortunate]  The 
contrast  with  what  ought  to  have  been  is  striking;  cf.  v.^-.  The 
people  who  have  scorned  the  requirements  of  Yahweh  are  pros- 
pered; while  those  who  have  feared  him  look  upon  them  with 
envious  eyes.  Cf.  Ps.  73^  ^^  The  arrogant  are  not  the  heathen,* 
but  the  godless  within  Israel  herself,!  as  in  Ps.  11921.51.69.73. 
85.  i22_  jhe  heathen  would  scarcely  be  spoken  of  as  "testing" 
God;  cf.  v. ". — Yea,  the  doers  of  wickedness  are  built  up;  yea, 
they  test  God  and  escape]  For  the  figure  of  building  as  represent- 
ative of  the  prosperity  of  persons,  cf.  Je.  i2ifi"-  31*  Jb.  22"^ 
The  "test"  here  is  probably  an  allusion  to  the  "test"  proposed 
in  31°.  According  to  all  accepted  standards,  the  wicked  have 
tried  the  goodness  of  God  beyond  endurance.  Yet  they  do  not 
receive  the  punishment  they  so  well  merit.  The  pious  are  suffer- 
ing oppression  and  want;  the  wicked  escape  all  trouble  and  they 
prosper  on  every  hand.    Is  this  not  "test"  enough? 

16.  Thus  have  those  who  feared  Yahweh  talked  together,  each 
with  his  fellow]  The  prophet  now  lapses  into  the  third  person, 

•  Contra  Jer.,  Calvin,  Hi.,  Reinke,  Ke.,  Isop.,  et  al.. 
t  So  e.  £.  Mau.,  Koh.,  Or.,  Now.,  Marti,  Dr.. 


yS  MALACHI 

speaking  about  the  pious,  rather  than  to  them.  Yet  in  reality 
his  thought  is  meant  for  the  encouragement  of  the  doubters  to 
whom  he  has  just  been  speaking.  This  rendering,  based  upon 
(S  #  (J,  shows  unmistakably  that  the  words  of  vv.  i^-  ^^  are  spoken 
by  those  who  worship  Yahweh.  M,  however,  reads,  "  Then  spake 
together  those  who  feared  Yahweh,  etc. "  Aside  from  a  gram- 
matical difficulty,  this  involves  assigning  the  foregoing  doubts  to 
the  godless  in  Israel,  interpreting  "the  arrogant"  as  character- 
ising the  heathen,  and  leaving  the  words  of  the  pious  unrecorded. 
Furthermore,  no  definite  point  of  attachment  in  time  can  be 
found  for  "then." — And  Yahweh  has  given  heed  and  hearkened] 
Nothing  has  escaped  the  attention  of  Yahweh.  He  is  ever  mind- 
ful of  his  own. — Attd  a  book  of  remembrance  has  been  written  before 
him]  A  permanent  memorandum  is  thus  ever  before  Yahweh's 
eyes,  so  that  he  can  by  no  possibility  forget  to  take  up  the  case 
of  the  pious  Jews  at  the  appropriate  time.  This  conception  of 
the  deity  as  provided  with  books  or  tablets  to  aid  his  memory  in 
preserving  the  records  of  human  deeds  is  not  uncommon.  It 
is  found,  for  example,  in  Dn.  y^o  Ps.  56*  69-*  139^*  Ez.  13^  Is.  4' 
65^  Ex.  32^2  Ne.  13"  Rev.  20I'.*  The  idea  w^as  probably  based 
upon  the  corresponding  custom  of  oriental  monarchs;  cf.  Est.  6'-  2; 
Herodotus'  Hist.  Ill,  140,  V,  11,  VIII,  85.  An  equivalent  Greek 
phrase  was  "written  upon  the  tablets  of  Zeus"  {iypdcpj]  eVAto? 
oeXroL^;)^ — Regarding  those  who  fear  Yahweh  and  take  refuge  in 
his  name]  These  are  they  whose  names  and  records  appear  in 
Yahweh's  book.  M  describes  them  somewhat  differently,  by 
making  the  latter  half  of  the  clause  read, "  and  think  of  his  name." 
But  this  creates  a  difficult  and  isolated  Hebrew  idiom  and  yields 
a  rather  weak  sense.  The  emended  text  describes  the  jhous  as 
solicitous  to  obey  Yahweh  perfectly  and  as  placing  their  whole 
confidence  in  him  under  even  the  most  trying  circumstances. 
To  "take  refuge  in  Yahweh's  name"  is  to  take  refuge  in  Yah- 
weh himself,  for  in  the  Hebrew  mind  the  name  and  the  person- 
ality were  inextricably  intermingled  and  practically  identified.f 
— 17.  And  they  will  be  mine,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts,  on  the  day 

•  V.  also  Book  of  Jubilees  36'°  3q«;   PIrqe  Aboth  2';  Enoch  81*  89"  90"-  »  98' '  .     For  the 
same  idea  in  Babylonian  literature,  v.  KA  T.',  402. 

t  Q.  Giesebrecht,  Die  ullleilamenllulie  Sclidlzung  des  Goltesttamens  (1901),  passim. 


316-18  7^ 

which  I  am  about  to  make]  The  phrase  "be  mine"  connotes  a 
most  intimate  relationship,  with  all  the  favour  and  blessing  in- 
volved in  such  a  relationship.  The  remainder  of  the  verse,  with 
V.  1*,  sets  forth  a  part  of  the  significance  of  the  phrase.  The  day 
of  Yahweh  is,  of  course,  before  the  prophet's  mind.  HI  contains 
an  additional  word,  probably  a  gloss,  which  makes  it  necessary 
to  translate,  "And  they  will  be  my  special  treasure,  says  Yah- 
weh of  hosts,  on  the  day,  etc. "  But  this  is  difficult  Hebrew  {v.  i.). 
— Atid  I  will  spare  them  even  as  a  man  spares  his  son  who  serves 
him]  i.  e.  in  the  terrible  judgment  of  Yahweh's  day,  Israel  will 
be  pitied  and  shielded  by  Yahweh,  just  as  a  father  shields  his 
own  sons  and  requires  hired  workmen  or  slaves  to  undertake  the 
more  difficult,  dangerous,  or  unpleasant  tasks.  The  prophet  here 
sounds  again  the  note  upon  which  he  began  his  prophecy,  viz. 
Yahweh's  love  for  Israel;  cf.  Ps.  103^^.  This  is  indeed  the  under- 
lying thought  throughout  his  whole  book. — 18.  And  you  shall 
again  distinguish  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  between  him 
who  serves  God  atid  him  who  serves  him  not]  i.  e.  just  as  in  the 
"good  old  times"  prosperity  attended  Israel  and  attested  her 
standing  as  the  people  of  God,  so  on  the  day  of  Yahweh  the  nor- 
mal moral  order  will  be  reinstated.  The  pious.  God-fearing  Is- 
raelites, who  are  here  addressed,  will  receive  their  just  reward; 
whereas  the  godless,  who  are  now  triumphant,  will  then  be  pros- 
trated in  humiliation  and  branded  as  wicked  in  the  sight  of  all. 
There  will  no  longer  be  any  excuse  for  the  pious  to  harbour  any 
such  thoughts  about  God  as  are  expressed  in  2'^  For  similar 
distinctions  between  the  fate  of  the  pious  and  that  of  the  ungodly, 
cj.  Is.  65'^'-  Ps.  ii*^-  73  ii«"Dn.  12^  Matt.  25^2^-.  Some 
prefer  to  render,  "You  will  return  (/.  e.  from  your  present  state 
of  mind)  and  see,  etc."  *  But  the  adverbial  usage  "again"  is 
very  common  and  its  adoption  here  avoids  the  necessity  of  leav- 
ing so  much  to  the  imagination. 

4\  With  this  verse,  (!►  H  and  many  Hebrew  mss.  begin  a  new 
chapter  or,  at  least,  leave  an  extended  space  between  3^*  and  3^^ 
But  the  best  Hebrew  tradition  supports  the  continuation  of  ch.  3 
to  the  end  of  the  book.    Our  English  translation  follows  (S  H  in 

*  So  e.  g.  We.,  Now.,  Dr.,  van  H.. 


8o  MALACHI 

this  respect. — For,  behold,  that  day  will  come,  burning  like  an  oven] 
The  representation  of  Yahweh's  judgment  upon  the  wicked  as 
a  consuming  fire  is  a  common  one;  e.  g.  Is.  lo^*^^-  30^^  Zp.  i^*  3^ 
Am.  i'"-  Je.  21"  Ez.  21'-''.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  origin 
of  this  circle  of  ideas,*  it  had  become  completely  at  home  in  pro- 
phetic thought  by  the  time  of  Malachi. — And  all  the  arrogant  and 
every  one  that  does  wickedness  will  be  stubble]  Cf.  Is.  5^^  471''  Na.  i^" 
Ob.  '*  Zc.  12^. — And  the  day  that  is  coming,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts, 
will  burn  them  so  that  it  will  not  leave  to  them  root  or  branch]  Cf. 
Jb.  iS"'.  The  total  destruction  of  the  wicked  is  a  favourite  theme 
with  the  prophets;  e.  g.  Am.  91°  Is.  iqI-"  Je.  f^^*  lo^^  Ez.  138-16. 
— 2.  But,  for  you  who  fear  my  name,  the  sun  of  righteousness  will 
arise  with  healing  in  his  wings]  This  exact  figure  is  nowhere  else 
employed  in  the  Old  Testament;  but  cf.  Ps.  84"  139'.  It  means 
apparently  that  the  era  of  prosperity  and  peace  that  is  due  the 
righteous  will  be  inaugurated  on  Yahweh's  day,  and  that  all 
the  wrongs  of  the  past  will  be  made  right  for  Israel.  Like  the 
morning  sun  dispelling  the  darkness  of  night,  so  will  a  sudden 
manifestation  of  Yahweh's  righteousness  illumine  the  gloom  of 
Israel's  afflictions.  Righteousness  is  here  practically  equivalent 
to  vindication  and  victory,  as  is  so  often  the  case  in  Is.,  chs.  40- 
66;  e.  g.  41^  45*  46''  51^-  ^-  ^  56^  62^  Cf.  Je.  23^  33'^  In  con- 
nection with  "  sun  of  righteousness,"  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that 
the  Babylonian  Shamash,  the  sun-god,  was  conceived  of  as  the 
god  of  justice.  The  absolute  impartiality  of  the  sun's  rays  may 
easily  have  given  rise  to  the  association  of  justice  with  the  sun. 
The  phrase  "sun  of  righteousness"  does  not  indicate  any  per- 
sonal agent,  but  is  rather  a  figurative  representation  of  right- 
eousness itself  {v.  i.).  The  phrase  "in  its  wings"  at  once  sug- 
gests the  winged  solar  disk  of  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  and 
Persia.  This  representation  was  doubtless  known  in  Judah  at 
this  time,  either  through  borrowing  from  without  or  as  having 
been  inherited  from  a  remote  antiquity  in  Israel  itself  as  in  the 
rest  of  the  oriental  world.  Isolated  allusions  like  this  suggest 
how  little  we  really  know  of  the  social  and  aesthetic  background 
of  Hebrew  literature. — And  you  shall  go  forth  and  skip  like  fatted 

•  Cf.  ICC.  on  Zp.,  p.  179;    Gressmann,  Euhatoloiie,  4g  f.. 


4^-"  8i 

calves]  A  figure  representative  of  an  exuberance  of  vitality  and 
joy;  cf.  Je.  50". — 3.  Atid  you  shall  tread  down  the  wicked,  for  they 
will  be  ashes  mider  the  soles  of  your  feet]  The  triumph  of  the 
pious  over  the  wicked  is  one  of  the  standing  features  of  Hebrew 
eschatology,  though  it  assumes  varying  forms;  cf.  e.  g.  Ps.  149^-  ^ 
Mi.  413  f  Zp.  2»  38  Ob.  ""•  Am.  912  Is.  11"  «•  66^\— In  the  day 
which  I  am  about  to  make,  says  Yahweh  of  hosts]  Cf.  v.^^. 

4.  Remember  the  law  of  Moses,  my  servant]  This  verse  makes 
connection  with  neither  the  foregoing  nor  the  following  context. 
It  is  an  isolated  marginal  note  from  some  later  legalist,  who 
missed  any  express  mention  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  this  connection 
and  proceeded  to  supply  the  deficiency.  He  seeks  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  triumph  described  in  the  preceding 
verses  can  be  realised  only  through  Israel's  strict  and  loyal  ad- 
herence to  the  law  of  Moses.  At  the  time  when  this  note  was 
added,  the  tradition  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  law  was  evidently 
well  established,  though  the  development  of  that  law  and  that 
tradition  may  not  have  been  complete.  The  only  other  refer- 
ences to  Moses  by  name  in  the  prophets  are  Is.  63"-  ^^  Je.  151 
Mi.  6*  Dn.  9"-  ^^,  the  latter  verses  containing  the  only  oth^r 
mention  of  "the  law  of  Moses." — Which  I  commanded  him  in 
Horeb  for  all  Israel]  The  mount  of  the  giving  of  the  law  is  here 
named  in  accord  with  the  tradition  of  E  and  D  {cf.  Ex.  3^  17^  2>Z^ 
Dt.  i2  410  iSi'^  etc.),  rather  than  Sinai  as  in  J  (Ex.  1920)  and  P 
(Ex.  191-2  Nu.  lO-  Perhaps,  this  verse  was  added  before  the 
P  tradition  and  point  of  view  had  reached  its  full  development 
in  the  Hexateuch.  The  terminology  of  the  verse  is  Deuteronomic, 
e.  g.  "Horeb,"  "statutes  and  judgments";  hence  some  would 
deny  to  the  author  of  Malachi  any  knowledge  of  the  code  of  P.* 
But  this  addition  to  Malachi  is  certainly  later  than  the  earlier 
stages  of  P.  The  Deuteronomic  standpoint  and  phraseology 
were  not  suddenly  eliminated  upon  the  appearance  of  P.f — 
Statutes  and  ordinances]  These  make  up  the  body  of  the  law. 
The  exact  difference  between  "statutes"  and  "ordinances"  is 
not  clear,  though  the  latter  seem  to  have  been  laws  that  arose 
as  the  result  of  judicial  decisions. 

•  So  e.  g.  We.,  Now.,  van  H..  t  CJ.  Marti. 


82  MALACHI 

5.  Behold,  I  will  soid  unto  you  Elijah,  the  prophet,  before  the 
coming  of  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  Yahwch]  Cf.  Jo.  2^'.  Vv.  ^ 
and  ^  seem  to  be  a  gloss  upon  vv.  i"'.  They  reopen  a  subject  that 
was  closed  with  v. '.  Moreover,  they  apparently  take  a  different 
view  of  the  day  from  that  presented  in  vv.  ^-^.  There,  no  work 
of  preparation  seems  to  have  been  contemplated.  The  condi- 
tions on  earth  are  well  defined.  Society  falls  into  two  classes 
the  godly  and  the  ungodly.  All  that  is  needed  is  the  overthrow 
of  the  latter  and  the  exaltation  of  the  former.  Here,  all  classes 
geem  to  be  regarded  as  deserving  of  destruction.  There  are  no 
hard  and  fast,  sharply  defined  moral  and  spiritual  lines  between 
classes.  A  preliminary  work  of  purification  is  needed  in  order  to 
avert  a  total  destruction  on  Yahweh's  day.  These  verses  prob- 
ably reflect  the  conditions  of  a  later  age  when  Hellenising  in- 
fluences had  wrought  profound  changes  throughout  all  Israel. 
Why  Elijah  was  chosen  as  the  forerunner  of  the  day  of  Yahweh 
does  not  appear.  It  may  well  be  that  the  tradition  that  Elijah 
escaped  death  by  being  carried  bodily  to  the  heavens  contributed 
much  to  the  choice.  This  is  the  first  known  reference  to  him  in 
that  capacity;  but  he  remained  a  permanent  figure  in  later  es- 
chatology;  cf  Enoch  90=^1  (cf.^Sg'-'^),  Matt.  11"  16^"  if°'-  Mark  6>5 
8^  9^^  Luke  i"  9^8^-  John  i^^*  Earlier  hints  of  the  expectation 
of  some  such  forerunner  are  offered  by  Dt.  iS*'"''-  and  Is.  40^ 
Interpreters  here  have  differed  as  to  whether  Elijah  was  expected 
to  return  in  person,  or  another  was  to  come  in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  Elijah,  or  the  prophetic  order  in  general  was  to  be  restored,  or 
the  coming  of  John  the  Baptist  was  specifically  foretold.  Those 
who  see  here  a  prediction  of  the  coming  of  another  than  Elijah 
himself  remind  us  that  the  expected  Messiah  is  in  like  manner 
named  David,  although  there  is  no  thought  of  the  return  of  the 
original  David;  e.  g.  Ho.  3^  Je.  30'  Ez.  34^^'-  37^^'-.  The  cir- 
cumstances of  the  two  cases,  however,  are  not  alike.  David  did 
not  ascend  to  heaven  and  escape  death  on  the  one  hand;  and, 
on  the  other,  there  is  no  strong  tradition  of  the  perpetuation  of 
Elijah's  house  as  is  the  case  with  David,  whose  descendant  the 
Messiah  is  to  be.    There  is  no  warrant  here  for  going  beyond 

•For  Jcwiih  tradition  regarding  the  coming  of  Elijah,  cf.  Schiirer,  Jew.  Hist.,  §  29,  III,  2. 


I  6.6 


83 


what  is  written  and  refusing  to  accept  the  language  at  its  face 
value. — 6.  And  he  will  turn  the  hearts  of  fathers  toward  their  sons 
and  the  hearts  of  sons  toward  their  fathers]  This  state  of  estrange- 
ment within  families  is  the  mark  of  a  period  of  rapid  transition 
in  thought  and  customs.  Apparently,  the  younger  generation 
has  taken  up  with  some  new  philosophy  or  cult  or  political 
course  and  irreconcilable  conflict  has  arisen  between  them  and 
their  elders.  This  condition  best  accords  with  the  situation  in 
Israel  after  the  incoming  of  Greek  thought  and  influence.  A 
similar  state  of  society  is  reflected  in  Nu.  7^"^.  It  is  possible  to 
render  the  preposition  "toward"  here  by  "with"  and  to  inter- 
pret to  the  effect  that  fathers  and  sons  together  will  be  urged 
by  Elijah  to  repent.*  But  this  yields  an  intolerable  tautology 
within  the  sentence  and  adds  no  element  of  strength  to  the 
thought. — Lest  I  come  and  smite  the  land  with  a  ban]  The  ban 
involved  the  total  destruction  of  those  upon  whom  it  fell;  cf. 
I  S.  15^ '^^  Jos.  (iP  7^  The  land  referred  to  is  probably  Judah 
and  not  the  earth  as  a  whole.  For  the  opposite  of  this  threat, 
cf.  Zc.  14". 

At  the  end  of  Mai.,  the  Massora  says  that  in  the  case  of  the  books  of  Is., 
Twelve  Prophets,  La.  and  Ec,  the  next  to  the  last  verse  of  each  is  to  be 
repeated  after  the  last  verse  when  these  books  are  read  in  the  synagogue, 
because  the  last  verse  sounds  too  harsh.  (gABQr  ^  gggj^  j-q  accomplish 
the  same  end  in  Mai.  by  transposing  v.  -  (4*)  to  foil.  v.  -^.  But  (S^'*^-  ^^ 
&"  foil,  the  order  of  iK.  For  the  part  played  in  the  arrangement  of 
OT.  by  this  unwillingness  to  end  a  book  or  a  passage  with  a  harsh  say- 
ing, cf.  Grimm,  Liturgical  Appendixes,  etc.. 

3".  ^pm]  (g  i^apdvoLTe,  with  Dsnai  as  obj.;  hence  Riessler,  Dnitrn, 
Siev.  and  Now.*^  om.  mtr.  cs.. — nini]  (gY  adds  iravTOKparup-^  so  E. — 
14.  "'bj?]  d5  B  =  laj?.  g>  have  we  feared. — JJS.?]  Ordinarily  =  "gain 
made  by  plunder  or  extortion,"  and  so  "unjust  gain."  But  here 
rather  "gain  to  ourselves,"  as  in  Gn.  37"'*  Jb.  22'  Ps.  i'^^". — imci;'?:] 
Riessler,  rnnnr??. — nijmp]  H-k..  (^'iK^rai.  "Btristes.  mp  =  "be  black, 
dark";  cf.  Ar.  qadira  =  "be  dirty."  On  formation,  cf.  r\^iipi<.,  and 
Qes.^§ioog. — 'x  ',  ,jan]  Marti,  vjcrs,  omitting 'x  '^;  so  Now. "^(P),  Riessler. 
Eth.  om.  's;  so  Siev.. — 15.  anr  o^^vai^  unjx]  (S  iifieTs  iiaKapL^ofiev  &\- 
XoTplovs,  having  oii;  as  in  Kenn.  180, 92(?).  Siev.,  Now.'^(?)  om.  'n  and 
point  a^-^c'ND.  Hal.  'i  D''-)B'.sp  uidn. — ij3j]  Hal.  ubj. — '■z'y]  05  =  "'ti'V  Ss. 
so  Riessler. — una]  (g  &vTi(rT7i(rav. — 16.  tn]  Rd.  nj,  with  (&  ravra  and 
*  So  c.  g.  Ki.,  Rosenm.. 


84  MALACHI 

ft  01;  so  Wc,  GASm.,  Oort,  Now.,  van  H..  The  same  confusion  occurs 
in  Gn.  4=*,  where  ill  has  ts,  while  (6  B  represent  nr.  Bu.  ni  or  nstr; 
so  Now.*^,  Marti*^*"-.  Riessler,  nsr.  Hal.  h^n.  These,  however,  are 
too  unUke  M  to  win  general  approval.  On  the  force  of  the  pf.  with 
IN  as  in  M,  V.  Ges.  ^  >""=. — '•<  'i'  naij]  Bu.  2D"!?7?  omitting,  ''  'n\ — 
anon]  (g  €ypa\f/€v  =  3n3M;  so  0  and  Now.. — lijo]  Now.  id??. — '^  vxi^S] 
ft  =  vntS;  so  Siev.,  Now.'^. — las'  >3irnSi]  Rd.  icra  ^oriSi,  as  sug- 
gested by  Nestle  (ZAW.  XXVI,  290)  on  the  basis  of  C5's  koI  £i>Xai3oi/- 
n4vois;  so  also  Margolis  (ZAW.  XXVII,  233,  266)  and  ]Marti'^='"-.  (5 
uses  €v\ap€i(rdai.  to  render  non  also  in  Pr.  242'  Na.  i'  Zp.  3";  f/. 
Margolis,  /.  c.  ft  //w5c  praising  =  '•naii^Si.  We.(?)  ■'anN.  Bu.  '•aa'nSi; 
so  Now.'^(?).  Hal.  ^7.•f  n.  M  is  difficult,  since  acn  does  not  ordinarily 
mean  "hold  dear"  or  "esteem,"  but  "think"  or  "plan."  In  the  only 
places  where  it  approximates  the  meaning  desired  here,  viz.  Is.  13"  S3' 
53',  it  is  used  without  a  preposition,  whereas  here  it  is  foil,  by  3. — ■ 
17.  DvS]  Nestle  {ZAW.  XXII,  305),  d>;^.  For  S,  of  time  when,  cf. 
Gn.  8"  17=1  18'''  21'  Is.  ID'. — n'j'jj  >jvS  ns-x]  ik'n  may  be  taken  as  a  rel- 
ative particle  representing  the  object  of  ncj:,  viz.  "the  day  which  I  am 
about  to  make."  For  this  use  of  'y  in  the  sense  "fix"  or  "appoint" 
(scil.  a  day  for  a  special  purpose),  cf.  Ps.  1 18".  Or  TifN  may  be  treated 
as  introducing  a  temporal  clause,  viz.  "  when  I  am  about  to  act."  For  'y 
thus  used,  viz.  in  an  absolute  sense,  cf.  v.  ='  Is.  44"  48"  Je.  14'  Ps.  22^=37* 
Ez.  20'- "■  ". — hSjd]  (^  els  irepLirolrjaiv.  Aq.  irepioi!Knov.  Hi  in  possessione. 
T^  in  peculinm.  ft  an  assembly,  'o  =  "a  special  treasure,"  and  it  is  ap- 
plied to  Israel  six  times  {e.  g.  Ex.  19^)  and  to  gold  and  silver  twice  (viz. 
Ec.  2*  I  Ch.  293).  It  is  best  treated  here  as  a  gloss  on  iS  vn;  so  Siev., 
Now.'^.  Its  distance  from  '''7  vn,  with  which  it  must  be  taken,  is 
abnormal;  cf.  Nestle,  ZAW.  XXII,  305.  Furthermore,  we  should  ex- 
pect nSjp';'.  Some  would  connect  it  with  niyjr,  rendering  "day  which 
I  will  make  my  own  special  treasure";  so  e.  g.  Ra.,  Rosenxn..  But 
'd  ns*]?,  as  Isop.  notes,  would  naturally  mean  "acquire  property";  cf. 
Gn.  126  31' Dt.  8"'- Is.  19".— ^3^•^]  Hal.  ansn.— 18.  jo  Dn\sni]  Cf.y-^" 
1^3,  in  2  S.  19''.  The  original  substantive  character  of  ^a  shines 
through  such  usage.  Cf.  "B  quid  sit  inter ;  C  quantum  sit  inter.  Siev. 
and  Now.'^(?)  om.  'i'?  's  V2  mtr.  cs.. — 19.  iijns]  (&  adds  Kal  <f>\i^ei. 
aiiToh,  which  is  lacking  in  HP.  62,  86  and  HI,  and  is  under  obelus  in 
ft",  ft  adds  my  wrath. — an?]  (g  dXXo7e»'ers  =  anr. — ncj:]  (g,  with 
several  codd.  of  Kcnn.  =  •'w'j.';  so  Isop..  But  n-rj?  ^-^  is  a  collective  ex- 
pression and  may  well  be  continued  by  a  pi.,  as  in  dpn*. — vv]  (&  i>iro- 
\€i(f)$T]  =  21]}^-  so  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Bu.,  Siev.,  van  H.,  Du.^™-,  Ries- 
sler. But  the  3d  pers.  sg.  active  is  often  used  as  equivalent  to  a 
pass.,  like  the  French  "on  dit,"  etc.. — n^yi  v^Z']  01  freely  ia  "^ai  13 : 
cf.  its  similar  treatment  of  ^J>?i  "»>  in  2'-. — 20.  \i'fi']  Usually  masc,  but 


316-24  8^ 

fem.  here  and  in  Gn.  15'"  Je.  15'  Na.  3'^  Is.  45^  as  in  Ar..  The  choice 
of  the  fem.  here  may  be  due  to  the  influence  of  the  genitive  's. — np-i-i] 
Epexegetical  genitive;  c/.  Ges.  ^^'-^p. — n^Dj^i]  #  iipo7i  his  tongue.  H 
in  pennis  ejus.  Riessler,  a;3j33,  which  he  renders  "in  parentheses"  and 
regards  as  a  note  indicating  that  Nona  is  a  gloss. — orirpi]  (5  Kal  (TKipr-f)- 
a-ere.  Gratz,  D{iC'Dai.  Hal.  an-fC'i.  The  "i"  of 's  is  probably  due  to 
attenuation  from  the  usual  a;  for  other  cases,  cf.  Ges.  ^^"d. — pane] 
(g  iK  SecxfiQiv  dveifiiva.  U  de  armenio.  ^  of  the  ox  =  ipac.  'd  is 
always  associated  with  Sjj.*,  viz.  Am.  6^  i  S.  28=^  Je.  46=*.  It  denotes 
the  stall  in  which  cattle  were  tied  for  feeding  purposes,  paia  'y  thus 
=  "well  fed,  or  fattened  cattle." — 21.  oniDyi]  dw.;  cf.  D''py.  -  "wine 
newly  trodden  out."  ']}  =  "to  trample  upon,"  as  also  in  Ar.. — nisj] 
(B  om.;   so  Bu.  as  dittog.  of  nnn. 

Vv.  ="-2^  (Eng.  4<-«)  are  a  later  appendage  to  this  section;  so  Boh., 
ZAW.  VII,  210^.;  Schwally,  Lehen  nach  dem  Tode,  117;  Torrey, 
7J5L.  XVII,  7;  Marti;  Siev.;  Bu-^^^^-^h.  175.  sta.Theoi.  i.  335.  Du.^™-; 
Ko.  Gesch.  d.  alttestamentlichen  Religion  (19 12),  414/..  Now.  would 
retain  only  v. "  as  genuine.  The  linguistic  usage  of  these  verses  is  not 
conclusive  in  itself,  but  it  adds  weight  to  the  general  considerations 
urged  above  in  support  of  their  late  origin.  Mal.'s  term  is  not  '•>  or, 
nor  Niuni  Snjn  or,  but  Nnn  orn  or  'j?  'n  liJ-x  orn.  Mai.  speaks  of 
minn,  but  not  of  ns'D  niip.  Mai.  constantly  cites  '"'  "icn;  these  verses 
never,  ^djn  stands  here  as  against  ''Jn  elsewhere  in  Mai.. — noi]  Mas- 
sora  writes  here  i  majuscula,  not  to  emphasise  the  importance  of  the 
maxim,  but  to  note  the  fact  that  this  is  the  only  place  in  the  Book  of 
the  Twelve  where  this  pointing  of  these  consonants  is  found  (Ho.  12^ 
148  =:  113?);  while  outside  of  the  Book  of  the  Twelve,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Jb.  18''  (=  npO,  i"^?;  is  the  only  pointing  of  this  group  that 
occurs.  Von  Gall,  ZAW.  XXXI  (1911),  75,  suggests  that  the  large  i 
here  marks  the  beginning  of  an  addition,  as  the  beginnings  of  books  are 
so  marked  in  certain  cases,  viz.  Gn.  i'  Pr.  i'  Ct.  i'  Ec.  i*  i  Ch.  i>; 
cf.  Is.  401.  <S>^  iJ.vf]<Te7]Ti  =  •^3J.  A,  Eth.  and  Arm.  =  M. — 23.  n^jd] 
(g  =  '2VFtr\  (cf.  BS.  481");  so  Riessler. — Niun]  (gi  iirnpavfis,  deriving  it 
from  ."INI. — 24.  nnx]  (&  =  ax.  Riessler,  nnas  nuS — cja-^;]  '^y  =  Sx, 
as  frequently  in  later  Heb..  Rd.  Dn\ja,  with  Bu.,  Now.'^C?)  Marti'^^"-. 
(&  =  p. — DPns  ^jj  a''j3]  Qi>  dvdpdirov  irphs  rbv  TrXrjalov  avrov,  a  free 
rendering.    But  Riessler  would  restore  after  <$,  jrin-S]?  D^avi  nuSi. 


INDEXES  TO  MALACHI. 


nnb,  67/. 

Sin,  44. 

^nnsn,  44. 

•'12,  with  optative  force,  43. 
'3nSi:,  18/. 
nope,  43. 
nntt'c,  45. 
hnSpc,  44. 

^Ti,  44. 

3^J.  43- 


I.    INDEX  OF  HEBREW  WORDS 

nSjD,  84. 
njipi  ijr,  58. 


nnc,  42. 
CIO,  45. 

y^p,  74- 

jyiy-i,  24. 

nn  -\Ntt',  59. 

nun,  24. 
nnnn,  74/. 


n.    INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Babylonian  religion,  35. 
Book  of  Remembrance,  78. 

Canon,  5. 

Catechetical  method,  4,  20,  52,  61, 

69/. 
Commercial  piety,  76. 
Covenant,  48,  53,  63/. 

Date  of  book,  5  ff. 

Day  of  Yahweh,  62,  64,  79/.,  82. 

Deuteronomy  and  Malachi,  8/.,  32, 

69/.,  81. 
Dispersion,  30. 
Divorce,  51,  52,  56/. 

Edom,  5/.,  20/. 

Elephantine  papyri,  32,  42,  49/. 

Elijah,  82. 


Ethics,  73. 
Eucharist,  65. 

Faith,  14. 
Fatherhood,  25. 
Fatherhood  of  God,  26,  47. 

Governor  of  Judah,  6,  28,  42. 
Greek  influence,  83. 

Heathen,  30/. 

Idolatry,  49  /. 

Law  of  Moses,  81. • 
Lye,  67  /. 

Malachi,  a  proper  name,  9/.,  18/. 
Malachi,  character  of,  10/. 
Malachi,  traditions  concerning,  10. 


87 


88 


INDEX 


Messenger,  40,  62/. 
Messianic  hope,  20,  21,  23,  31. 

Nabataeans,  6. 
Name  of  God,  26,  78. 

Poetic  elements,  4/. 
Polygamy,  52. 
Priestly  Code,  8/.,  71. 
Priests,  37/.,  41/. 

Sacrifice,  26,  27,  29,  65. 


Sorcery,  65. 

Spirit,  54  /. 

Style,  4. 

Sun  of  righteousness,  80. 

Superscription,  4,  18/. 

Teaching  of  Malachi,  11  /. 
Tithes,  70/. 

Unity  of  book,  3  /.,  41. 

Wicked,  22. 


A 

CRITICAL   AND    EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

ON 

JONAH 

BY 

JULIUS    A.  BEWER,   Ph.D. 

ASSOCIATE    PROFESSOR   OF    BIBLICAL    PHILOLOGY,    UNION    THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY,    NEW    YORK 


INTRODUCTION  TO  JONAH. 

§  I.  THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  STORY  OF  JONAH. 

The  story  of  the  wilful  prophet  is  one  of  the  best  known  and  most 
misunderstood  in  the  Old  Testament:  an  occasion  for  jest  to  the 
mocker,  a  cause  of  bewilderment  to  the  literalist  believer  but  a 
reason  for  joy  to  the  critic.  The  Old  Testament  reaches  here  one 
of  its  highest  points,  for  the  doctrine  of  God  receives  in  it  one  of 
its  clearest  and  most  beautiful  expressions  and  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phetic religion  is  revealed  at  its  truest  and  best.  It  is  sad  that 
men  have  so  often  missed  the  spirit  by  fastening  their  attention 
on  the  form  of  the  story.  The  form  is  indeed  fantastic  enough 
and,  unless  rightly  understood,  it  is  likely  to  create  difficulties. 

At  almost  every  step  the  reader  who  takes  the  story  as  a  record 
of  actual  happenings  must  ask  questions.  How  was  it  possible 
that  a  true  prophet  should  disobey  a  direct  divine  command  ?  Is 
it  likely  that  God  should  send  a  storm  simply  in  order  to  pursue 
a  single  person  and  thus  cause  many  others  to  sufifer  too?  Do 
such  things  happen  in  a  world  like  ours?  Is  it  not  curious  that 
the  lot  should  fall  upon  Jonah  at  once,  and  evidently  without 
manipulation  on  the  part  of  the  sailors,  and  that  the  sea  should 
become  calm  directly  after  he  had  been  thrown  overboard  ?  That 
the  great  fish  was  at  once  ready  to  swallow  Jonah  may  be  passed, 
but  that  Jonah  should  have  remained  in  the  fish  for  three  days  and 
three  nights  and  should  have  prayed  a  beautiful  psalm  of  thanks- 
giving inside,  exceeds  the  limits  of  credibility,  not  to  mention  the 
point  that  the  fish  did  not  simply  eject  him  but  threw  him  up  on 
the  shore.  What  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  greatness  of  Nineveh 
the  author  had !  What  language  did  Jonah  speak  in  Nineveh  ? 
How  could  the  people  understand  him  ?  And  what  a  wonderful 
result  followed  his  preaching!  The  greatest  prophets  in  Israel 
had  not  been  able  to  accomplish  anything  like  it.     It  is  so  un- 

3 


4  JONAH 

precedented  that  Jesus  regarded  it  as  the  most  astounding  wonder 
of  the  story  (Lk.  ii"^).  Is  it  not  strange  that  absolutely  no  trace 
has  been  left  of  the  universal,  whole-hearted  repentance  of  the 
Ninevites  and  that  the  later  prophets  who  prophesied  against 
Assyria  knew  nothing  of  it?  And  what  shall  we  say  of  the  ex- 
traordinarily speedy  growth  of  the  plant  ? 

It  is  all  passing  strange.  We  are  in  wonderland!  Surely  this 
is  not  the  record  of  actual  historical  events  nor  was  it  ever  intended 
as  such.  It  is  a  sin  against  the  author  to  treat  as  literal  prose  what 
he  intended  as  poetry.  This  story  is  poetry  not  prose.  It  is  a 
prose  poem  not  history.  That  is  the  reason  why  it  is  so  vague 
at  many  points  where  it  should  have  been  precise,  if  it  had  been 
intended  as  a  historical  record.  The  author  is  not  interested  in 
things  which  a  historian  would  not  have  omitted.  So  he  says 
nothing  about  the  place  where  Jonah  was  ejected  or  about  his 
journey  to  Nineveh.  He  gives  no  name  of  the  king,  but  he  calls 
him  simply  "King  of  Nineveh,"  a  designation  which  was  never 
used  as  long  as  the  Assyrian  empire  stood.  He  does  not  speak 
of  the  time  of  his  reign  or  of  the  later  fate  of  Nineveh  nor  does 
he  specify  the  sins  which  were  responsible  for  Jonah's  mission. 
He  is  so  little  interested  in  the  personal  history  of  Jonah  that  he 
does  not  tell  us  what  became  of  him  after  he  had  received  his  well- 
merited  rebuke.  As  soon  as  he  has  finished  his  story  and  driven 
home  the  truth  he  intended  to  teach  he  stops,  for  he  is  interested 
only  in  that.  His  story  is  thus  a  story  with  a  moral,  a  parable,  a 
prose  poem  like  the  story  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  or  Lessing's 
Ring  story  in  Nathan  the  Wise,  or  Oscar  Wilde's  poem  in  prose, 
The  Teacher  of  Truth.  The  very  style  of  it  with  its  repetition 
and  stereotyped  forms  of  speech  shows  its  character,  for  these 
stylistic  characteristics  are  not  due  to  the  author's  limited  store 
of  phrases  but  to  his  intention  of  giving  a  uniform  character  to 
the  story. 

All  its  strangeness  disappears  as  soon  as  we  put  the  story  into 
the  category  in  which  it  belongs.  Then  we  can  give  ourselves  to 
the  enjoyment  of  its  beauty  and  submit  to  its  teaching  of  a  truth 
which  is  as  vital  and  as  much  needed  to-day  as  it  was  when  it  was 
first  told. 


CHARACTER   OF  THE   STORY  5 

It  is  useless  to  collect  similar  instances  to  prove  the  possibility  of  the 
swallowing  of  Jonah  by  the  huge  fish.  Nobody  denies  that  a  shark  or 
a  sperm-whale  can  swallow  a  man  whole  and  alive.  But  none  of  the 
stories  usually  adduced  prove  that  a  man  can  live  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  stomach  of  a  large  fish,  even  if  the  stories  could  be  relied 
on  as  truthful.  An  illustration  of  what  happens  when  the  facts  of  such 
a  story  are  really  investigated  is  given  by  Luke  A.  Williams  in  the  Expos. 
T.,  XVIII,  Feb.,  1907,  p.  239,  where  he  proves  by  documentary  evidence 
that  Konig's  story  of  the  whale-hunter  James  Hartley  who  had  been 
swallowed  by  a  whale  and  taken  out  of  its  stomach  alive  on  the  follow- 
ing day  (Konig,  DB.,  II,  p.  750  b..  Expos.  T.,  XVII,  Aug.,  1906,  pp. 
521/.)  is  nothing  but  a  sea  yarn.  A  similar  story  adduced  by  v.  OrelU 
would,  I  doubt  not,  have  the  same  fate,  if  it  were  investigated. 

Another  more  interesting  and  at  first  sight  more  promising  attempt 
to  make  the  historicity  of  the  miracle  probable  was  made  by  Trumbull. 
He  contended  that  it  was  most  reasonable  that  Jonah  should  have  been 
swallowed  and  later  ejected  by  a  fish  in  order  that  the  Ninevites  might 
regard  him  as  an  incarnation  of  their  god  Dagan,  called  Cannes  by 
Berosus,  who  is  represented  on  the  monuments  as  a  fish-man,  and  that 
they  might  believe  his  word  more  readily  and  repent.  (Ferd.  Chr.  Baur, 
in  1837,  had  already  connected  Jonah  with  Cannes,  but  in  a  different 
manner.) 

Trumbull  has  to  assume  that  there  were  witnesses  who  saw  how 
Jonah  came  out  of  the  fish,  "say  on  the  coast  of  Phoenicia,  where  the 
fish-god  was  a  favourite  object  of  worship,"  and  that  "a  multitude  would 
be  ready  to  follow  the  seemingly  new  avatar  of  the  fish-god,  proclaiming 
the  story  of  his  uprising  from  the  sea,  as  he  went  on  his  mission  to  the 
city  where  the  fish-god  had  its  very  centre  of  worship." 

But  these  assumptions  have  not  only  no  basis  in  the  narrative,  but 
are  opposed  to  its  spirit.  Nothing  is  farther  removed  from  the  mind  of 
the  author  than  to  say  that  Jonah,  the  prophet  of  Yahweh,  who  had 
proclaimed  to  the  sailors  that  Yahweh  was  the  God  of  heaven  who  had 
made  the  sea  and  the  dry  land,  and  who  had  been  sent  by  Yahweh  to 
proclaim  Yahweh's  message,  should  have  made  upon  the  Ninevites  the 
impression  of  being  an  incarnation  of  their  fish-god,  and  that  Yahweh 
should  have  desired  "to  impress  upon  all  the  people  of  Nineveh  the 
authenticity  of  a  message  from  himself"  in  this  manner.  Doubtless  the 
Ninevites  would  have  thought  that  the  message  Jonah  was  giving  was 
from  Dagan  and  not  from  Yahweh.  It  is  most  improbable  that  a  Jew- 
ish author  should  have  thought  that  Yahweh  would  accommodate  him- 
self so  much  to  the  capacity  of  these  heathen  as  to  minister  to  their 
superstitions  and  to  strengthen  their  faith  in  another  god  (cf.  Konig, 
DB.,  II,  752). 


JONAH 


§  2.     ORIGIN  AND   PURPOSE   OF  THE   STORY. 

We  saw  that  as  soon  as  we  put  the  story  into  the  category  in 
which  it  belongs  all  strangeness  disappears.  This  holds  good 
especially  in  regard  to  the  fish  episode.  It  has  been  regarded  by 
most  as  a  singular,  unparalleled  adventure,  and  the  mythical 
stories  which  were  told  by  the  Greeks  concerning  Hercules  and 
Hesione,  Perseus  and  Andromeda,  Arion  or  Jason  have  usually  not 
been  considered  by  most  critics  as  sufficiently  parallel  to  be  con- 
nected with  Jonah.  But  the  situation  is  different  now.  This  part 
of  the  story,  far  from  being  unique  and  unparalleled,  turns  out  to 
be  a  common  story  the  world  over.  Frobenius  especially,  and 
after  him  H.  Schmidt,  have  shown  that  a  narrative  according  to 
which  a  man  was  swallowed  by  a  monster,  remained  a  long  time 
inside  of  it  and  came  out  later  safe  and  sound,  was  told  among 
many  peoples.  Maritime  peoples  naturally  spoke  of  a  large  fish 
or  another  sea-monster,  inland  peoples  of  a  wolf  or  bear  or 
dragon  or  some  other  animal.  The  mode  of  deliverance  varied, 
though  sometimes  it  was  the  same  as  in  the  story  of  Jonah.  The 
essential  point,  however,  is  the  same  with  all.  Our  story  of  Jonah 
is  therefore  but  one  of  a  large  number,  which  Frobenius  calls 
"Jonah-stories."  * 

Such  tales  of  miraculous  deliverances  must  have  been  told  along 
the  coast  of  Palestine.  It  is  not  without  significance  that  the 
story  of  Perseus  and  Andromeda  is  localised  at  Joppa,  the  port 
at  which  Jonah  embarked.  And  our  author  took  this  rather  com- 
mon feature  of  the  swallowing  of  a  man  by  a  fish  and  his  subse- 
quent deliverance,  and  used  it  in  his  own  manner.  But  his  story 
is  altogether  different  from  those  others.  They  are  mostly  myth- 
ical stories  about  the  sun,  his  is  a  prophetic  story,  pervaded  by 
the  truest  spirit  of  Israel's  religion.  To  our  author  the  mythical 
element  has  entirely  disappeared.  He  uses  the  fish  episode  merely 
in  order  to  bring  Jonah  back  to  the  land.  If  he  had  not  known 
any  of  those  stories,  he  might  perhaps  have  thought  of  a  different 

*  Such  stories,  not  the  special  Jonah-story  of  the  OT.,  were  caricatured  by  Lucian  of  Samo- 
sata  in  his  Vera  Hi^loria  (Engl,  transl.  by  H.  W.  Fowler  and  F.  G.  Fowler,  The  Works  oj  Lucian 
oj  Samosala,  II,  pp.  136-173). 


ORIGIN   AND  PURPOSE  7 

means  of  delivering  Jonah.  But  this  feature  lay  ready  at  hand 
and  was  most  impressive,  and  there  was  no  reason  why  he  should 
not  use  it. 

The  ancient  Jews,  just  as  other  oriental  peoples,  loved  romance. 
And  a  story  effectively  told  would  carry  home  its  own  lesson  where 
a  simple  straightforward  address  would  have  been  useless.  Our 
author  knew  this  well.  Other  prophets  had  told  parables  and 
had  gained  a  hearing  when  other\vise  it  would  have  been  impos- 
sible. The  great  teachers  of  postexilic  Judaism  made  frequent 
use  of  stories  as  a  means  of  teaching,  compare  only  the  stirring 
tales  in  Daniel,  to  mention  no  others.  Our  author  had  a  great 
lesson  to  teach,  a  lesson  which  must  not  fall  on  deaf  ears.  And 
the  situation  that  confronted  him  was  this.  The  great  prophets 
had  taught  that  Yahweh  is  not  only  Israel's  God  but  the  God  of 
the  whole  world,  for  He  is  the  only  God  that  exists.  From  this 
followed  that  He  is  interested  not  only  in  Israel  but  in  all  the 
nations  of  the  world,  and  that  His  love  goes  out  to  them  all.  He 
punishes  sin  wherever  He  finds  it,  among  the  nations  as  well  as 
in  Israel.  But  He  does  not  desire  the  death  of  the  sinner  but  that 
he  repent  and  live.  And  so  He  warns  them  all  of  the  inevitable 
punishment  that  must  come,  if  they  continue  in  sin,  and  He  hopes 
that  they  will  turn  in  true  repentance  and  be  saved.  See  Je.  i8^"'. 
This  truth  is  a  universal  truth,  it  is  for  the  nations  as  well  as  for 
Israel.  It  was  a  wonderful  prophetic  conception  and  a  glorious 
doctrine!  But  it  did  not  control  the  thoughts  and  the  lives  of  the 
Jews.  They  had  become  narrow  and  embittered.  The  great 
world  powers  had  dealt  cruelly  with  them,  and  they  had  come  to 
feel  that  the  nations  deserved  nothing  but  swift  and  terrible  pun- 
ishment. But  the  punishment  was  delayed,  and  the  passion  in 
those  hot  Jewish  hearts  grew  stronger  and  the  hatred  of  the  heathen 
fiercer.  They  hoped  for  Yahweh's  interference  on  their  behalf. 
Surely  Yahweh,  the  God  of  righteousness,  would  vindicate  Him- 
self. But  they  hoped  in  vain. — Meanwhile  the  spirit  of  the  great 
prophets  was  working  gently  in  some  hearts,  softening  and  illu- 
minating them;  and  the  wonderful  passion  of  Deutero-Isaiah  with 
his  glorious  idea  of  Yahweh  as  the  one  and  only  God  and  his 
ardent  hope  of  the  triumph  of  His  religion  all  over  the  wide  world 


8  JONAH 

and  of  the  salvation  of  all,  was  living  on  in  a  few  great  souls.  And 
with  it  the  ideal  of  Israel's  mediatory  service  for  mankind  in  bring- 
ing the  knowledge  of  the  true  religion  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
An  ideal  like  this,  once  given,  could  not  die.  It  lived  on  in  the 
heart  of  our  author,  who  felt  keenly  how  far  removed  Israel  was 
from  this  ideal.  To  summon  them  to  it  would  be  worthy  the  task 
of  a  prophet.  And  so,  seeing  the  great  vision  of  the  oneness  of 
God  and  of  His  character,  and  conceiving  the  universal  implica- 
tions of  those  truths,  he  went  to  his  people  and  told  them  this 
story,  in  the  light  of  which  the  problem  of  the  delay  of  the  punish- 
ment of  the  nations  was  solved  and  by  which  the  heart  of  Israel 
was  summoned  to  its  high  task. 

He  used  folk-loristic  elements  for  his  story,  as  we  saw  above, 
but  why  he  should  have  taken  Jonah  as  the  hero  of  his  story  is 
difficult  to  tell.  There  had  been  a  prophet  Jonah  of  Gath-Hepher 
in  Zebulon,  identified  most  probably  with  Meshed  in  Galilee,  three 
miles  north-east  from  Nazareth.  He  had  predicted  victory  to  Jero- 
boam II  in  the  ninth  century  B.C.  according  to  2  K.  14"'.  Noth- 
ing else  is  known  of  him.  Neither  the  Book  of  Kings  nor  the 
Chronicles  tell  anything  else  about  him.  It  seems  that  his  name 
attracted  our  author  as  especially  appropriate  for  his  purpose, 
for  Jonah  =  Dove  had  become  a  symbolic  name  for  Israel.*  Our 
author  needed  a  representative  name  and  "  Jonah  "  suited  his  pur- 
pose. The  Cook  of  Kings  does  not  mention  his  father's  name,  and 
it  seems  to  me  most  plausible  that  our  author  added  it  himself  to 
express  that  Jonah  (Israel)  was  the  son  of  Amittai  (or  probably 
of  Emeth)  the  son  of  truth,  having  the  truth  of  God,  the  true  re- 
ligion,— which  indeed  Israel  did  have,  but  which  it  did  not  wish 
to  share  with  others. — Since  this  Jonah  lived  at  the  time  of  the 
Assyrian  empire  our  author  chose  Nineveh  as  the  representative 
of  the  nations,  although  in  his  own  time  Nineveh  was  no  longer 
in  existence.  That  he  antedated  Israel's  connection  with  Nine- 
veh is  a  minor  point,  since  he  wrote  no  historical  treatise. 

It  has  sometimes  been  assumed  even  by  scholars  who  do  not 


*  Ephraim  is  compared  to  a  dove  by  Ho.  7"  11",  and  is  railed  a  turtle-dove  in  Ps.  74". 
"In  later  times  Jonah  or  'Dove'  became  a  standing  title  for  Israel."  Che.,  KH.,  II,  2567,  n. 
4,  with  references. 


ORIGIN   AND   PURPOSE  9 

take  the  story  as  a  record  of  literal  facts  that  traditions  concern- 
ing Jonah  had  been  handed  down,  e.  g.,  of  a  trip  abroad  attended 
by  great  dangers,  or  even  of  a  mission  to  Nineveh  and  of  his  won- 
derful success  there.  In  the  light  of  the  silence  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  and  of  Chronicles,  this  is  most  unlikely  and,  besides,  it  is 
altogether  imnecessary,  because  the  story  is  the  work  of  poetic  im- 
agination, pure  and  simple. 

Bu.  has  made  a  most  interesting  suggestion  in  this  connection.  He 
regards  the  Book  of  Jonah  (except  the  psalm)  as  a  part  of  the  Midrash 
of  the  Book  of  Kings  to  which  the  Chronicler  refers  as  his  source  (II,  24^"). 
A  Midrash  is  "an  imaginative  development  of  a  thought  or  theme  sug- 
gested by  Scripture,  especially  a  didactive  or  homiletic  exposition,  or  an 
edifying  religious  story"  (Driver,  Inir.,  p.  529).  Bu.  believes  that  the 
Book  of  Jonah  is  a  Midrash  on  2  K.  14"  and  that  its  place  in  the  mid- 
rashic  work  was  after  2  K.  14'^,  the  words  of  the  canonical  Book  of 
Kings  being,  of  course,  included  in  it.  Yahweh's  grace  to  Israel  taught 
there,  is  extended  here  also  to  the  nations.  The  beginning,  and  it  came 
to  pass,  and  the  abrupt  ending  of  the  story  point  according  to  him  to  its 
having  once  been  part  of  a  larger  whole. 

That  the  book  has  the  character  of  a  Midrash  Bu.  has  rightly  seen, 
but  that  it  was  part  of  the  Midrash  of  the  Book  of  Kings  has  been  con- 
tested in  view  of  the  character  of  the  Midrashim  given  by  the  Chronicler 
and  in  view  of  the  poor  connection  between  2  K.  142'  and  Jon.  i'. 

Winckler  suggested  therefore  that  it  was  taken  from  the  Book  of  the 
Seers  (quoted  in  2  Ch.  ^^^^  CS)  which  was  a  Midrash  on  an  old  pro- 
phetic code  and  which  contained  originally  also  the  Books  of  Isaiah 
to  Malachi.  The  original  place  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  was  not  after 
2  K.  14",  for  the  mention  of  Nineveh  would  be  premature  there.  And 
really  the  Jonah  of  2  K.  14-^,  Wkl.  argues,  is  not  the  same  as  the  Jonah 
of  Jon.  I',  their  identification  is  due  to  a  glossator.  The  Book  of  Jonah 
belongs,  not  under  Jeroboam  II  but  under  Manasse  with  the  Book  of 
Nahum,  which  Wkl.  dates  from  this  time.  "There  the  downfall  of 
Nineveh  had  been  predicted,  but  directly  after  it  had  to  be  told  that 
Manasse  had  been  obliged  to  go  to  Babylon  to  the  King  of  Assyria  to 
justify  himself,  or  at  least  that  he  had  remained  Assyrian  vassal.  This 
harmonised  but  iU  with  the  predictions  of  Nahum — and  thus  a  com- 
mentator felt  the  need  of  explaining  the  matter — and  the  Book  of  Jonah 
was  there"  (pp.  262/.).  It  cannot  be  claimed  that  Wkl.'s  theory  is 
preferable  to  Bu.'s.  It  does  not  do  justice  to  the  spirit  of  the  story  and 
its  argument  against  the  originality  of  the  identification  of  our  Jonah 
with  the  one  of  2  K.  14-'  is  untenable  (see  on  i')-  And  even  if  the 
mention  of  Nineveh  under  Jeroboam  II  were  premature  (but  see  Gn. 


lo  JONAH 

io'2  J)  we  should  have  to  credit  the  author  with  this  historical  error. 
According  to  Bu.  {JE.,  VII,  p.  226),  "Winckler  retracted  his  opinion  in 
'AUgemeine  Evangelisch-Lutheriscke  Kirchenzeitung,'  1903,  p.  1224." 

The  Allegorical  or  Symbolical  Interpretation: — Some  scholars,  among 
them  Bloch,  Kleinert,  Cheyne,  G.  A.  Smith,  regard  the  stor}'  as  an  alle- 
gory not  as  a  parable.  To  them  it  is  an  allegory  of  Israel's  history. 
Israel  (=  Jonah),  as  God's  servant  and  prophet,  was  to  bring  His  truth 
to  the  nations.  But  it  evaded  its  duty  and  was  in  consequence  "swal- 
lowed up"  by  the  world  power  Babylon  (=  the  great  fish).  In  the 
Babylonian  exile  it  turned  and  prayed  to  Yahweh  and  was  disgorged  or 
liberated.  After  the  restoration  it  was  dissatisfied  with  Yahweh's  long- 
suffering  with  the  nations  and  waited  for  their  punishment. 

The  combination  of  the  Babylonian  empire  with  the  great  fish  seems 
to  be  fortified  by  Je.  $i^*-  ■".  But  there  it  is  a  comparison  which  is  made 
in  the  te.xt,  while  in  Jonah  nothing  calls  for  an  allegorical  interpretation 
of  the  fish.  The  untenableness  of  the  theory  is  at  once  manifest  when 
it  is  carried  through  consistently,  as,  e.  g.,  by  Wright,  who  thinks  that 
the  wonderful  plant  symbolises  Zerubbabel.  But  even  the  moderate 
interpretation  of  G.  A.  Smith  does  not  sound  natural.  The  heathen 
powers  are  represented  by  the  sea,  by  the  fish,  and  by  Nineveh.  Cheyne 
confines  himself  to  the  salient  points  and  thus  gives  the  theory  its  most 
plausible  and  attractive  character.  The  elements  of  truth  contained  in 
it  have  been  recognised  and  done  justice  to  above,  but  (he  symbolic 
interpretation  of  the  fish  is  uncalled  for. 

Sometimes,  though  not  usually,  the  allegorical  interpretation  is  com- 
bined with  the  typical  which  sees  in  Jonah  the  type  of  Christ.  This  is 
due  to  the  explanation  by  the  evangelist  (Mt.  12'")*  oi  the  sign  of  Jonah 
of  which  Jesus  spoke  in  Mt.  12"  i6^  The  evangelist  interpreted  the  sign 
of  Jonah  as  meaning  the  three  days  and  three  nights  which  Jonah  spent 
in  the  fish  and  the  same  period  which  Jesus  was  "in  the  heart  of  the 
earth."  That  Jesus  Himself  meant  by  the  sign  of  Jonah  something 
else  is  plain  from  Lk.  11'",  For  even  as  Jonah  became  a  sign  unto  the 
Ninevites  [by  his  preaching  of  repentance],  so  shall  also  the  Son  of  man 
be  [with  His  gospel]  lo  this  generation.  ^"-The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand 
up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for  they 
repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is 
here. 

Often  this  reference  of  Jesus  to  the  sign  of  Jonah  has  been  used  as  an 
argument  for  the  historicity  of  the  story  of  Jonah.  Jesus  believed  in  it, 
so  it  is  reasoned,  consequently  His  followers  must  do  so  also.  But  Jesus 
had  no  intention  of  afl!irming  or  denying  its  historicity.  He  was  using 
an  illustration,  and  an  illustration  may  be  drawn  from  fiction  as  well  as 
from  actual  history.     Paul  refers  to  the  legend  of  the  rock  that  followed 

*  .\lniost  all  NT.  critics  regard  Mt.  n*"  as  a  gloss  or  interpretation  by  the  evangelist. 


CANON   AND   DATE  II 

the  Israelites  on  their  exodus  from  Egypt,  i  Cor.  io<,  and  Jude  refers  to 
the  Jewish  legend  concerning  the  contention  of  the  archangel  Michael 
with  Satan  for  the  body  of  Moses.  Does  that  stamp  these  legends  as 
historical  facts?  We  constantly  use  references  to  literature  as  illustra- 
tions without  thinking  for  a  moment  that  this  implies  a  belief  in  the 
historicity  of  the  stories  or  persons  referred  to.  Nothing  can  therefore 
be  inferred  in  regard  to  its  historicity  from  the  use  which  Jesus  makes  of 
the  story.  Even  v.  Orelli  who  believes  in  the  genuineness  of  Mt.  12*" 
and  in  the  historicity  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  agrees  that  the  historicity  of 
the  resurrection  does  not  prove  the  historicity  of  the  Jonah  miracle.* 

§  3.     INSERTION   OF  THE  BOOK   IN  THE 
PROPHETIC  CANON. 

When  the  parabolic  character  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  clearly 
understood,  the  surprise  that  it  should  have  been  included  among 
the  prophetic  books,  from  which  it  differs  so  much  in  form,  dis- 
appears, for  it  is  then  recognised  as  belonging  there  by  virtue  of 
its  teaching  and  of  its  spirit  which  are  those  of  the  greatest  proph- 
ets. It  was  therefore  a  true  instinct  that  led  the  collectors  to 
place  the  book  in  the  canon  of  the  prophetic  books. 

Budde  thinks  it  was  included  among  the  Twelve  to  round  out 
the  number  twelve.  But  that  seems  a  most  inadequate  reason. 
Konig  suggests  that  its  special  place  in  the  canon  after  Obadiah 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  theory  that  the  words  a  messenger 
was  sent  among  the  nations  in  Ob.  i  "found  a  clear  illustration  in 
the  story  of  Jonah"  and  "that  the  question  why  the  threats  pro- 
nounced against  Edom  had  remained  unfulfilled  was  intended  to 
be  answered  in  the  Book  of  Jonah"  {BD.,  II,  748b). 

§  4.    THE  DATE   OF  THE  BOOK. 

If  Jonah  himself  were  the  author  the  date  would  at  once  be 
settled,  for  Jonah  the  son  of  Amittai,  of  Gath-Hepher  in  Zebulon, 
lived  under  Jeroboam  II,  to  whom  he  prophesied  victory  over  the 
Aramaeans,  2  K.  14^.  But  the  book  nowhere  claims  to  have  been 
written  by  Jonah.     It  is  a  story  about  him  not  by  him.    And 

*  On  the  use  of  the  fish  s>-mbol  in  the  early  Christian  church,  see  esp.  H.  Schmidt,  Jona, 
pp.  144  S- 


12  JONAH 

every  argument  is  against  so  early  a  date.     The  language  of  the 
book  is  such  that  it  cannot  belong  to  the  ninth  century  B.C. 

A  number  of  late  words  are  used  which  occur  elsewhere  only  in  late 
literature.  Thus  nj::  2'  4"-  '  "j  a  favourite  word  of  our  author  for  the  ear- 
lier riix,  is  found  elsewhere  only  in  i  Ch.  g'^  Pg.  61 «  Dn.  i^-  lo-  is  and 
frequently  in  Aramaic,  Ezr.  7"  Dn.  2^*-  ",  etc.  ''3"<  4"  is  used  in  late 
literature,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Chronicles,  Daniel,  for  the  earlier  n^a-*. 
In  Ho.  8''  i3->  was  already  suspected  by  the  Masorites  who  read 
'?■>  instead  of  it.  pr^'i'  occurs  elsewhere  only  Ps.  107'"  Pr.  26'",  and 
S  2Z'r\  (=  n^Wo))  I*  and  nN''-i|i  32  are  not  found  in  the  earher  literature. 

Again,  there  are  some  decisive  Aramaisms  in  the  book.  na'j/Pn  i^  for 
the  Heb.  arn,  c/.  Dn.  6',  Elephantine  Papyri  and  the  Targums.  ay::  3"  in 
the  sense  of  command,  edict  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Aram.,  cf.  Ezr.  6'^  Dn. 
3'",  etc.,  in  Heb.  the  root  means  to  taste,  cf.  3"".  The  use  of  U'  for  icn  (in 
"•v^-C'S  i^j'Sao  i>2,  pa*  4'")  became  common  in  later  Heb.  under  Aram,  influ- 
ence. Vu'  had  been  used  in  early  northern  Israelitish  writings  (cf.  Ju. 
5)  but  elsewhere  only  in  late  passages  (Psalms,  Ecclesiastes) .  Since 
the  other  linguistic  evidence  points  to  a  late  date,  the  use  of  w'  for  iu-n 
becomes  also  an  indication  of  the  period  when  it  was  so  freely  employed. 
n*^:;  is,  which  is  not  found  before  Ezekiel  (27'-  "  ")  and  n^nD  which 
occurs  only  here  in  the  OT.,  have  both  been  regarded  as  Aramaisms.  But 
nj'DD  means  here  evidently  the  lower  deck,  and  is  derived  from  the  good 
Heb.  root  JSD,  and  nSn  may  not  have  been  used  accidentally,  since  the 
OT.  has  so  few  sea-stories. 

In  accord  with  the  linguistic  evidence  is  the  familiarity  with  OT. 
writings  which  our  author  displays.  He  knew  the  story  of  Eli- 
jah's flight  to  Horeb  (i  K.  19),  for  he  modelled  ch.  4  on  it,  cf.  4^^-  ^^ 
with  I  K.  19^*^.  He  knew  the  teaching  of  Je.  i8^'^^,  of  the  condi- 
tional character  of  Yahweh's  predictions  to  the  nations,  and  his 
story  is  a  beautiful  illustration  of  the  principle  expressed  in  Je. 
1 8^-  ^,  At  what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation  and  con- 
cerning a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy  it, 
if  that  nation,  concerning  which  I  have  spoken,  turn  from  their  evil, 
I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  them.  Cp.  also  Jon. 
3*'^  with  Je.  18"  26^.  He  also  knew  Deutero-Isaiah's  teaching 
of  monotheism  in  its  universal  applications  and  is  intent  on  incul- 
cating it  by  his  story. 

This  brings  us  down  to  exilic  or  postexilic  times  and  it  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  Yahweh  is  called  God  of  heaven,  a  title  which 


UNITY   OF   THE   BOOK  I3 

was  prevalent  in  postexilic  but  so  rare  in  pre-exilic  times,  that  He 
is  called  thus  only  in  one  early  story,  Gn.  24'-  ''.*  With  this  late 
date  agrees  the  manner  in  which  Nineveh  is  spoken  of  as  a  city 
of  the  past  (f)  and  in  which  it  is  described  as  so  fabulously  great. 
Moreover  the  title  "King  of  Nineveh"  (3^)  could  not  have  been 
given  to  him  as  long  as  the  Assyrian  empire  still  existed  (Sayce, 
Monuments,  p.  487). 

Everything  points  thus  to  the  postexilic  period,  and  the  book  is 
quite  generally  dated  thus  by  scholars.  To  fix  the  date  more  def- 
initely is  difficult  because  the  indications  are  too  slight.  Still  the 
lower  limit  can  be  determined.  The  book  cannot  be  later  than 
the  third  century  B.C.,  because  Jonah  is  included  among  the  twelve 
by  Jesus  Sirach  (49^")  and  referred  to  by  3  Mac.  6^  and  Tob.  14*. 
The  fact  that  our  author  quotes  the  ancient  characterisation  of 
Yahweh's  nature  (Ex.  34*^)  in  the  form  which  Joel  (2"^)  uses, 
adding  and  relenting  of  the  evil,  may  indicate  that  this  form  was 
prevalent  at  the  time  when  Joel  and  the  author  of  Jonah  wrote, 
or  that  the  author  of  Jonah  knew  Joel's  book.  The  use  of  another 
phrase  of  Joel  (2"^)  in  3®*  would  favour  the  latter.  In  that  case 
the  book  was  written  between  400  and  200  B.C.,  and  this  is  as 
much  as  we  can  say. 

§  5.    THE  UNITY   OF  THE  BOOK. 

Though  the  story  makes  the  impression  of  literary  unity,  it  is 
not  without  certain  unevennesses  and  apparent  incongruities  which 
tend  to  give  a  semblance  of  truth  to  the  hypothesis  of  composite 
authorship  which  has  been  repeatedly  put  forward. 

J.  G.  A.  Miiller,  in  1794,  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  deny 
the  unity  of  the  book.  He  believed  that  the  psalm  in  ch.  2  was 
composed  by  Jonah  himself,  but  the  story  by  an  exilic  author. 
In  1799  Nachtigal,  in  his  desire  to  account  for  the  miraculous 
story  of  chs.  i,  2,  assumed  three  sources,  which  are,  as  he  thought, 
distinguished  by  differences  in  language,  spirit  and  manner  of 
presentation,     (i)  The  prayer,  composed  by  the  prophet  himself 

*  The  phrase  a''^^**  nin<  4'  is  not  to  be  explained  by  dependence  on  Gn.  2  but  by  confla- 
tion of  texts.     See  below. 


14  JONAH 

after  his  deliverance  from  mortal  danger,  2^"^";  (2)  the  poetical 
apology  of  a  Jewish  sage  of  the  exile  directed  against  particular- 
istic fanatics  of  his  people,  chs.  3,  4;  (3)  a  prosaic  introduction, 
ji-16  2I.  2. 11  ^1^  written  by  a  scribe  of  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
to  serve  as  a  connection  between  the  first  two  originally  indepen- 
dent pieces.  The  mention  of  Tarshish  in  4^  suggested  a  trip  to 
Tarshish  and  the  phrase  from  the  bowels  0/  Slieol,  2'  (Engl.  2^), 
Jonah's  stay  in  the  fish.  The  untenableness  of  this  theory  is  at 
once  apparent.  But  it  is  noteworthy  that  the  belief  that  Jonah 
composed  the  psalm  himself  and  that  the  story  was  a  later  inven- 
tion on  the  basis  of  the  psalm  was  entertained  also  by  others,  e.  g., 
by  Bunsen  {Gott  in  der  Geschichte,  I,  pp.  349^.,  see  Kue.). 

These  early  attempts  had  no  influence  on  later  criticism.  And 
the  next  one  by  K.  Kohler  {Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebrder)  seems 
to  have  remained  unnoticed  by  everybody  except  Dean  Farrar, 
who  mentions  his  theory  in  The  Minor  Prophets,  p.  236,  accord- 
ing to  which  Kohler  regarded  i*  2*"®  (Heb.  '"*")  3®  4*'*  as  interpo- 
lations. Kohler's  article  is  unfortunately  inaccessible  to  me,  but 
he  seems  to  have  discerned  the  difficulties  in  chs.  3,  4,  which  later 
critics  also  pointed  out,  and  he  apparently  tried  to  remove  the 
chronological  difficulty  of  3''^-  4^-^  by  omitting  4'"^  as  secondary. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  this  drastic  excision  of  4*'*  was  ac- 
cepted later  by  Kaufmann  Kohler  and  Riessler. 

The  next  suggestion  was  made  by  Kleinert  in  1868.  He  ac- 
counted for  the  incongruities  in  chs.  3,  4  by  assuming  that  there 
were  "obviously  in  chapters  iii  and  iv  two  accounts,  which  state 
essentially  the  same  thing,  the  one  in  laconic  touches,  the  other  in 
more  minute  detail  .  .  .  and  which  agree  verbally  and  intimately 
with  one  another.  First  account,  ch.  iii.  1-5,  lo;  iv.  1-5.  Second 
account,  iii.  1-4,  6-10;  iv.  1-3,  6-1 1."  This  seems  to  Kleinert 
so  obvious  that  he  gives  no  argument  in  support  of  his  theory. 
But  the  assumption  of  the  interweaving  of  two  accounts  is  jus- 
tified only  if  there  are  evidences  of  real  differences.  Here  where 
the  accounts  agree  so  closely  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate 
them,  the  difficulties  must  be  solved  in  some  other  way. 

In  1879  the  Jewish  scholar,  K.  Kohler,  subjected  the  book  to  the 
most  searching  literary  criticism  it  had  as  yet  received  and  con- 


UNITY   OF   THE  BOOK  15 

eluded  that  a  number  of  interpolations,  glosses  and  redactional 
transpositions  were  responsible  for  the  book  as  we  now  have  it. 

Kohler  regards  as  postexilic  interpolations  in  the  pre-exilic  book: 
i5b.  6. 8a^b  (from  what  is  thy  country  on)  9b^.  10.  m  22-10  (Engl.  >-»)  ^^■^'^ 
'"»  (he  reads  narrative  tenses  in  '»^'')  ^-  4'-<-  "•=•  ^^  {to  be  for  a  shade 
over  his  head;  Kohler  reads  with  (5  to  give  him  shade,  and  omits /row  his 
displeasure)  '">. — He  inserts  in  i-,  Yet  three  ((8)  days  more  and  Nineveh 
will  be  overthrown  !  from  3*.  He  substitutes  this  also  in  3"'  ior  the  mes- 
sage which  I  will  speak  to  thee.  He  inserts  in  3*  and  so  he  did  on  the 
second  day  and  so  he  did  on  the  third  day. — He  emends  4'-  ',  "But  at  the 
dawn  of  the  morning  Yahweh  ordered  a  hot  wind,  and  it  smote  the 
castor-oil  plant  and  it  withered.  And  as  the  sun  arose,  the  sun  struck 
Jonah's  head  and  he  became  faint,  etc.* — Kohler  transposes  i"  after  i^, 
and  I"  after  i'.  "The  interpolation  of  vers.  5c  and  6  accounts  for  the 
removal  [from  its  right  place]  of  the  former,  and  v.  10  presents  itself  as  a 
late  substitute  of  a  very  problematic  nature  in  place  of  v.  16." 

The  elements  of  truth  in  the  theory  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 
W.  Bohme  followed  Kohler  in  1887,  but  evidently  knew  nothing 
of  his  predecessors.  He  distinguished  four  sources  and  glosses 
besides. 

A,  the  principal,  Yahwistic  narrator,  i'-'»  (with  omissions  in  '•  <») 
7. 8aa.  9.  loaa.  u.  isao.  13. 15  2i-  n  3i-3»-  '•i'-  6  (a  lacuna  due  to  R  exists  after  3^ 
in  which  the  sparing  of  Nineveh  was  told)  4i-  S"  (contents)  ^  (except 
to  deliver  him  from  his  displeasure)  '»<»''•  ^^-  '•  •"»  (mostly),  "".  B,  the 
Elohistic  author,  worked  over  a  part  of  the  same  material,  3'i'-  ••»•  "'• 
(except  some  additions)  45''-  io»  (and  thou  didst  not  cause  it  to  grow)  '"> 
(except  and  miich  cattle)  and  probably  some  material  in  the  preceding 
verses  also.  R,  the  Elohistic  Redactor,  worked  A  and  B  together  into 
a  whole.  C,  the  Yahwistic  supplementer,  I't-  «•  loa^t.  is^^.  m.  is  2--^'> 
4'-  '.  To  these  four  Bohme  adds  the  author  or  authors  of  minor  glosses, 
I'  (the  first  Tarshish,  and  the  second  from  the  presence  of  Yahweh) 
u^.  5b.  6. 8a^.  b^  {what  is  thy  country,  etc.)  2<»  {into  the  midst  of  the  sea) 
«■  '■  8  {into  Thy  holy  temple)  '  ^t^^^  {the  cattle  and  the  sheep,  and  shall 
not  feed)  '  {man  and  beast)  4*-  "»  {to  deliver  him  from  his  displeasure) 
sa.  lob.  lib  {and  much  cattle). 

Bohme's  theory  is  so  complicated  and  artificial  that  it  appears 
at  once  as  most  improbable.  He  magnifies  little  unevennesses, 
and  requires  a  logical  exactness  which  is  out  of  the  question  in  a 

*  ni?7in  due  to  a  copyist's  change  of  niSya,  ace.  to  Kohler. 


1 6  JONAH 

story  like  that  of  Jonah.  The  linguistic  differences  with  which  he 
seeks  to  strengthen  his  thesis  are  imaginary;  the  difference  es- 
pecially in  the  use  of  Ya/iweh  and  Klohim  cannot  be  explained  on 
his  hypothesis. — Yet  Bohme's  perception  of  the  uneven  places  was 
so  keen,  that  Kuenen  gave  it  serious  consideration.  He  pointed 
out,  in  addition  to  the  above  points,  that  it  was  highly  improbable 
that  a  story  with  such  a  tendency  could  have  been  so  popular  in 
postexilic  times  as  Bohme's  theory  of  four  writers,  besides  glos- 
sators, assumes.  If  Bohme  had  not  insisted  on  parallel  narrators 
in  chs.  3,  4  (A  and  B)  and  if  he  had  not  apportioned  the  additions 
to  various  distinct  writers,  his  criticism  would  not  have  looked  like 
"a  mere  curiosity"  (Cornill).  For  in  spite  of  the  untenableness 
of  his  theory,  his  article  contained  many  acute  suggestions  which 
later  criticism  has  found  valuable,  e.  g.,  on  i'  2*  3*  4®;  and  strange 
as  it  may  seem  it  has  strongly  influenced  the  recent  criticism  of 
H.  Schmidt  and  Riessler. 

Winckler  (1899)  tried  to  solve  the  literary  problem  of  the  book 
in  a  much  simpler  manner.  He  transposed  i"  after  1*  {cf.  Kohler) ; 
1*°  after  i'';  and  4''  after  3*.  In  4®  he  omitted  that  shade  should  be 
over  liis  head,  and  in  4*  he  supplied  after  east  wind:  and  it  tore  doivn 
the  hut.  The  transposition  of  i^^  is  plausible,  and  adopted  by  Bu., 
but  i^'  fits  even  better  in  its  present  context,  where  it  is  quite  sig- 
nificant. See  com.  The  transposition  of  i^°  is  not  so  plausible, 
but  that  of  4^  seems  at  first  irresistible,  and  is  accepted,  e.  g.,  by 
Marti.  There  is  a  real  difficulty  at  this  point,  but  it  is  not  to  be 
solved  by  a  transposition.     See  below.     On  4"  and  4^  see  com. 

The  next  attempt  was  made  by  H.  Schmidt,  who  believed  that 
Bohme  had  pointed  out  in  the  main  correctly  where  literary  criti- 
cism must  begin,  but  had  barred  himself  from  a  true  solution  by 
his  hypothesis  of  two  parallel  narratives  in  chs.  3,  4.  Schmidt  tries 
to  account  for  various  insertions  by  a  religious  motive.  Thus  he 
thinks  that  the  prayer  of  thanksgiving  in  ch.  2^"'"  (Engl.  ^'^)  was 
inserted  because  the  change  from  wrath  to  mercy  in  the  actions  of 
Yahweh  appeared  to  a  later  reader  too  abrupt.  In  ch.  3  it  seemed 
to  this  reader  that  God  was  far  too  easily  reconciled,  so  he  added 
3®"®.  Similarly  in  ch.  i  it  seemed  strange  that  heathen  sailors 
should  be  permitted  to  throw  a  prophet  of  Yahweh  into  the  sea 


UNITY   OF   THE  BOOK  1 7 

without  being  punished  for  it,  so  he  inserted  i^^-  ".  In  each  case 
there  is  a  trait  in  the  narrative  which  is  expanded  by  the  interpo- 
lator: in  2"  and  Jonah  prayed  is  made  definite  by  2^"^°;  the  fasting 
of  the  nobles  in  3^  is  expanded  by  3^"^;  to  the  question  of  the  sailors 
in  i^^  there  were  added  i^^-  "  to  bring  out  that  they  had  done  their 
utmost  to  evade  the  necessity  of  killing  a  prophet  of  Yahweh.  In 
addition  to  these  interpolations  Schmidt,  heedless  of  his  own  crit- 
icism of  Bohme,  regards  i'*'^"-  ''^'^  '^-  ^-  ^-^°^'^  as  an  independent  nar- 
rative which  was  woven  together  with  the  other.  A  lacuna  before 
V.  ^  he  fills  out  by  something  like,  and  Jonah  cried  to  his  God  and 
the  sea  became  calm,  and  then  reconstructs  the  following  outline: 
"The  sailors  have  treated  their  passenger  in  a  hostile  manner; 
perhaps  they  are  leading  him  away  against  his  will,  or  have  robbed 
him  of  his  possessions.  Yahweh  hurls  a  storm  upon  the  sea  as 
a  punishment.  In  vain  the  robbers  cry  to  their  gods;  in  the 
greatest  need  the  captain  requests  also  his  prisoner,  who,  certain 
of  the  mighty  protection  of  his  God,  had  lain  down  to  sleep  un- 
concerned about  the  storm,  to  participate  in  their  prayer.  He 
complies  with  the  request  and  the  storm  abates  immediately.  By 
the  effect  of  his  words  the  sailors  recognise  with  terror  how  mighty 
a  man  they  have  treated  with  hostility,  and  so  they  are  very  much 
afraid"  (p.  297).  This  story  spoke  of  a  trip  not  of  a  flight  to 
Tarshish.  But  the  reasons  for  regarding  3^"^  i^^-  "  as  interpola- 
tions and  I*"""-  ^''"'^-  "•  ^"^"''"  as  a  part  of  a  dififerent  narrative  are 
not  strong  enough  for  these  assertions. 

It  may  appear  worth  while  to  examine  Schmidt's  arguments  somewhat 
in  detail.  In  3'  it  seems  strange  to  Schmidt  that  the  King  should  pro- 
claim the  fast  again  when  the  subjects  are  already  keeping  it  (3*). 
Besides,  he  adds,  in  3'  the  terms  □''p^  tt'jS  and  Nip  are  used,  but  in  3^-  * 
C^-'C  r\D2  and  in  3^  p>'T. — But  is  the  scene  presented  in  y  ^-  not  quite  con- 
sistent? Did  the  author  himself  not  feel  any  interest  in  describing  the 
penitence  of  everybody,  high  and  low?  And  does  it  not  often  happen 
that  a  decree  is  issued  after  the  people  have  already  taken  measures? 
And  must  our  author  always  use  the  same  phrases  ?  In  3^  he  could  not 
use  the  Hiph'il  of  t<"\p,  so  he  used  a  synonym.  The  reason  that  Yah- 
weh's  grace  came  too'quickly  after  the  sincere  repentance  of  the  people 
seems  singularly  at  fault  in  view  of  the  teaching  of  the  OT. 

In  regard  to  i'^   "  Schmidt  thinks  it  strange  that  the  .sailors  should 


l8  JONAH 

try  to  gain  the  shore  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  will  of  God  as  revealed 
by  Jonah;  that  they  should  ask  Yahweh's  pardon  when  they  surrender 
Jonah  and  that  they  should  speak  of  him  as  innocent.  Since  v.  '«  tells 
of  their  conversion,  the  prayer  to  Yahweh  in  v.  '<  which  would  be  the 
beginning  of  their  adoration  of  Yahweh,  does  not  fit. — But  nothing 
whatever  is  said  of  their  conversion  to  Yahweh!  And  the  other  difficul- 
ties are  not  real  either. 

The  reasons  for  removing  i*""-  ^'"^^-  »■  s-'oaa  and  regarding  them  as  a 
fragment  of  another  narrative  are  not  convincing  either.  They  are  as  fol- 
lows. The  deep  sleep  of  Jonah  is  difficult  to  ex])Iain,  and  strangely 
enough  it  is  not  said  what  Jonah  did  after  the  captain  had  told  him  to 
pray.  Moreover,  the  strange  questions  of  the  sailors  instead  of  the 
simple  What  hast  thou  done?  and  the  still  stranger  answer  of  Jonah  with 
the  contradiction  of  his  own  flight  from  Yahweh  seem  to  Schmidt  to 
show  that  they  are  extraneous  elements  in  the  story.  So  he  removes 
vv,  6i>.  6.  s-ioia^  V.  '"'»  also  belongs  with  them  because  v. '  presupposes 
the  unavailing  prayer  of  the  sailors;  and  one  of  the  doublets  in  v.  *  goes 
with  them  too:  v.  *»*  because  Yahweh  is  the  author  of  the  storm  accord- 
ing to  V.  °.  So  vv.  ^"^  ^•■"^  are  taken  with  the  other  insertions.  Again 
Schmidt  tries  to  fortify  these  arguments  by  linguistic  differences,  thus 
vv,  3a.  6ap  yse  H'jx  but  V.  ">  n^DD;  v.^^P  uses  i>d  but  v.  ■""»  nn. — In 
regard  to  nyo  note  that  the  verb  is  used  in  v.  "  by  the  other  narrative! 
Besides,  nn  is  the  wind,  while  ">J'D  is  used  here  of  the  raging  of  the 
waves  caused  by  the  wind.  r\yso  is  not  the  same  as  n^jx,  but  means 
tJie  lower  deck  and  is  used  most  appropriately.  So  the  linguistic  argu- 
ment is  futile.  It  is  true,  however,  that  Jonah  did  probably  not  pray  at 
the  captain's  request.  But  why  this  should  bring  an  element  of  incon- 
gruity into  the  narrative  is  difficult  to  see,  and  surely  Schmidt's  recon- 
struction of  the  other  narrative  at  this  point  is  fanciful.  Again  it  is 
true  that  the  questions  of  the  sailors  are  not  the  questions  we  should 
have  asked,  but  they  are  not  so  incongruous  to  the  narrative  that  they 
cannot  be  part  of  it.  Jonah's  answer  is  probably  not  preserved  in  its 
original  form,  but  it  forms  so  integral  a  part  of  the  story  that  we  miss 
something  in  the  story  as  constructed  by  Schmidt.  He  omits  (with 
others)  for  he  had  told  them  in  v.  '".  But  then  how  could  the  sailors 
know  that  he  was  fleeing  from  Yahweh?  The  lot  could  not  tell  them 
that  it  was  Yahweh  who  was  pursuing  Jonah,  and  he  himself  had  not 
told  them  anything  at  all.  Does  Schmidt  think  that  the  sailors  were 
Hebrews?  or  that  they  had  recognised  Jonah  as  a  Hebrew?  And  even 
then,  might  he  not  have  offended  another  deity  ? 

Budde  refers  to  Schmidt's  essay  rather  favourably,  and  appears 
to  approve  the  excision  of  passages  which  he  regards,  with  Schmidt, 
as  additions  due  to  the  desire  to  emphasise  the  edifying  element  of 


UNITY  OF   THE   BOOK  I9 

the  story.  He  says,  "You  will  find  that  the  story  runs  more 
smoothly  and  fluently;  whether  all  stumbling  blocks  are  removed 
by  it  also  in  ch.  4  remains  an  open  question."  Unfortunately,  Bu. 
gives  no  details.  In  his  earlier  article  in  JE.  he  suggested  in  regard 
to  ch.  4  to  omit  vv.  *•  ^  and  in  v.  ^^  and  Yahweh  ordered  a  scorch- 
ing east  wind.  He  also  transposed  there  i*^  (with  Wkl.)  after  i*, 
omitted  i^^^-  ^^^  and  read  in  i***'"  (with  Kohler)  "and  from  the 
presence  of  Yahweh.  .  .  .  I  am  feeing  "  or  he  would  insert  after 
V.®  and  I  am  fleeing  from  His  presence.  He  was  inclined  to  omit 
3*  also.  On  the  transposition  of  i^^  see  above.  Bu.'s  omission  of 
4^^*^  seems  to  be  due  to  his  understanding  of  the  wind  as  the  agent 
of  withering  the  plant.  But  this  is  not  the  author's  intention.  See 
com.  The  omission  of  4*  is  plausible,  but  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary; that  of  the  whole  of  4^  as  well  as  of  3^  is,  however,  uncalled 
for.  See  com.  i*'^^  had  already  generally  been  recognised  as 
secondary,  and  the  emendation  in  i^^"  as  well  as  the  omission  of 
i^ob  which  is  involved  in  it  are  most  probable.  Whether  Bu. 
would  omit  now  more  than  in  JE.  is  not  certain,  though  his  gen- 
eral statements  in  his  Geschichte  der  althebrdischen  Litteratur  and 
in  his  PropJietisches  Schriftium  lead  one  to  suspect  it. 

Two  interesting,  though  unconvincing  attempts  to  disentangle 
the  knots  by  means  of  metrical  criticism  were  made  by  Sievers  and 
Erbt.  Sievers  (1905)  regards  the  story  as  a  unity  (except  the 
psalm  in  ch.  2),  and  removes  only  a  few  glosses  which  were  added, 
as  he  thinks,  to  emphasise  the  religious  element  of  the  story: 
in  1^^  the  God  of  heaven,  who  has  made  the  sea  and  the  dry  land; 
2)^^  and  let  them  turn  each  one,  etc.;  in  ^'^  for  I  know,  etc.;  in  3^  in 
God  (after  believed) ;  4^  and  he  prayed  to  Yahweh,  similarly  2^,  an 
editorial  transition  verse  for  the  interpolated  psalm.  He  omits 
also  4''''  but  for  other  and  more  satisfactory  reasons. 

Why  the  author  himself  should  not  be  responsible  for  this  re- 
ligious element  is  diflficult  to  see.  For  surely  it  is  not  out  of  line 
with  the  rest  of  the  book!  Schmidt  omits  entirely  different  pas- 
sages from  the  same  motive.  The  metrical  argument  can  hardly 
suffice  in  a  story  like  Jonah,  which  was  certainly  not  intentionally 
written  in  strict  metrical  form.  Neither  Miiller  (1794)  and  Eich- 
horn  (18 19)  who  printed  the  book  as  poetry,  nor  Siev.  and  Erbt 


20  JONAH 

appear  to  me  to  have  proved  that  we  have  anything  else  but  beau- 
tiful prose  in  the  book  (the  psalm  of  course  excepted).  And 
though  there  may  be  certain  measured  cadences  in  its  sentences, 
they  are  unintentional,  and  deviations  from  the  metric  regularity 
are  to  be  expected  in  rhythmic  prose.  It  is  not  without  signifi- 
cance that  Siev.  and  Erbt  differ  in  their  metric  arrangement.  Siev. 
believes  that  the  book  is  composed  of  smooth  lines  of  seven  beats 
each  throughout.  Erbt  thinks  it  was  written  partly  in  lines  of 
seven  beats  each,  partly  in  lines  of  alternately  three  and  six  beats 
each. 

Erbt  (1907)  accepts  Wkl.'s  rearrangement  of  the  order  of  the 
text  and  his  insertion  in  4^,  but  he  distinguishes  two  diflferent 
sources  (exclusive  of  the  psalm  in  ch.  2). 

(i).  ii -laa.  6aa.  b.  6  [Jonah's  unavailing  prayer  or  refusal  to  pray  has 
been  omitted]  '  '"»•  8«<»b.  9.  Ha  .  .  .  [Jonah  is  then  thrown  overboard  and 
the  storm  abates]  '^  2'»-  ^  ^^^  ^!><^a  ^e-io  ^\-3^.  e  (except  to  be  a  shade  over  his 
head)  '  [add:  but  Jonah  was  very  angry] '  [add  at  beginning:  and  Yahweh 

said]     '0     ".         (2).      I^ajSb.   13.    6a^   .    .    .    II.    12.    15    2">   .    .    .   33b.  4    45a3b    35   .    .    .   48. 
«aa    .    .    . 

Besides,  there  are  glosses  in  i'  {son  of  Amittai)  ■■">  {away  from  Yahweh) 
*  great  (before  wind)  ^  {the  god)  '  {the  God  of  heaven)  '"^  {for  thou,  O 
Yahweh,  etc.)  '^  {to  Yahweh)  31-  '  {and  beast,  cattle  and  sheep)  *  {man 
and  beast)  '  {that  we  perish  not)  42  {long-suffering  and  of  great  goodness)  ' 
{Yahweh)  ^^  {for  it  is  better,  etc.)  ^  {that  shade  might  be  over  his  head)  "» 
{that  great  city)  ■">  {and  much  cattle). 

Erbt  believes  that  both  sources  were  written  in  metre:  the  first 
source,  as  was  said  before,  in  lines  of  seven  beats  each,  the  second 
in  lines  of  alternately  three  and  six  beats  each.  He  regards  the 
two  sources  as  parts  of  a  so-called  Zweipro pJietenbiich  and  a  Drei- 
prophetenbiich  which  contained  the  stories  of  Elijah  and  Jonah; 
and  Elijah,  Elisha  and  Jonah  respectively.  He  adduces  no  argu- 
ments except  the  metre.  His  method  is  arbitrary  and  his  division 
untenable.  Siev.  arrives  at  an  entirely  different  conclusion  by  the 
use  of  the  metre  as  a  literary  criterion. 

The  most  recent  contribution  is  by  the  Roman  Catholic  scholar 
Riessler  (191 1),  who  is  greatly  influenced  by  his  predecessors,  es- 
pecially by  Bohme,  whose  curiosities,  however,  he  does  not  repro- 


THE   PSALM   IN   CHAPTER    2  21 

duce.  He  believes  that  the  book  was  worked  over  several  times, 
one  of  the  revisers  added  explanatory  material,  another  glosses. 
These  additions  are  i^  iJJie  son  of  Amittai)  *^^-  ^^^-  ^  (from  and 
whence  doest  thou  come  on)  '^^  (in  ^'^  he  reads  with  (§  /  am  a  ser- 
vant of  Yahweh)  '''■  "^-  '^-  "•  '';  2'  (except  and  he  said)  *■  '■  '-^•'; 
^sb.  7b  (^fj.Qjj^  ifj^y  ^^^^  ^^i  y-ggj  Qj^)  8. 9  ^1-4. 5b.  6a  (^^Q  deliver  him 

from  his  displeasure)  ®  {on  account  of  the  ricinus)  "^. 

Ries.  gives,  as  a  rule,  no  reasons  for  his  omissions,  perhaps  be- 
cause most  of  them  had  been  proposed  by  others.  His  most  note- 
worthy points  are  perhaps  his  view  of  ch.  2,  on  which  see  below, 
and  his  omission  of  i^''  with  its  graphic,  interesting  detail.  But 
both  are  exceedingly  improbable. 

These  manifold  different  attempts,  not  a  single  one  of  which  is 
convincing,  show  that  there  are  certain  difficulties  in  the  text  of 
our  book  which  must  be  accounted  for.  But  they  must  not  be 
magnified.  There  are  real  difficulties,  e.  g.,  in  i^-  ^  3^  4^,  but  the 
remedies  needed  are  slight,  and  all  theories  that  work  with  several 
sources,  or  with  many  transpositions,  are  too  artificial  to  be  true. 
The  result  of  our  survey  of  these  proposals  and  of  our  detailed 
exegesis  in  the  commentary  is  that  the  book  is  a  unity,  with  the 
exception  of  the  psalm  (2^"^"  Engl.  ^"^),  and  that  there  are  several 
glosses,  in  i^'^  (Tarshish),  ^^  {on  whose  account  has  this  come  to 
us),  "^  (due  to  a  mistaken  reading  in  i^  which  is  to  be  emended), 
3*  {and  beasts)  4^^  (due  to  a  mistaken  reading  in  3*  which  is  to  be 
corrected  according  X.o%). 

§  6.    THE  PSALM   IN   CHAPTER   2. 

It  is  a  psalm  of  thanksgiving  for  help  received  in  great  danger, 
not  a  prayer  for  help  in  the  midst  of  danger.  The  danger  is  past, 
the  psalmist  is  safe.  So  this  cannot  be  the  prayer  which  Jonah 
prayed,  or  which  the  author  of  the  story  would  have  put  into  Jo- 
nah's mouth,  while  he  was  inside  the  fish,  for  it  does  not  fit  into 
the  situation.  Even  though  the  fish  was  from  the  very  first  Yah- 
weh's  instrument  of  deliverance  to  the  narrator,  so  that  from  his 
point  of  view  Jonah  was  safe  as  soon  as  he  had  been  swallowed, 
he  nowhere  indicates  that  his  hero  thought  so  too,  and  this  is  cer- 


22  JONAH 

tainly  not  self-evident.  To  be  swallowed  l)y  a  fish  is  usually  not 
the  same  as  to  be  saved!  Our  author  is  too  good  a  narrator  to 
omit  a  point  like  this. 

The  p.salm  would  fit  better  if  it  followed  2".  There  a  prayer  of 
thanksgiving  and  praise  is  in  place.  In  view  of  the  many  trans- 
positions, accidental  or  otherwise,  which  have  occurred  in  the  OT. 
text,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  psalm  has  been  displaced.  And 
indeed  v.  ^  and  v.  "  go  well  together,  and  the  psalm  follows  natu- 
rally, And  Jonah  prayed  to  Yahweh  his  God  out  of  the  belly  of 
the  fish.  And  Yahweh  spoke  to  the  fish  and  it  threw  up  Jonah 
on  the  dry  land.  Then  Jonah  [Jonah  must  be  supplied]  said, 
Out  of  my  anguish  I  called  to  Yahweh,  etc. 

Such  a  transposition  is  not  difficult,  and  the  displacement  may 
be  simply  accidental.  But  even  then  it  cannot  be  maintained 
that  the  psalm  was  composed  by  the  author  of  the  story.  If  it  had 
been  composed  by  him,  he  would  have  fitted  it  more  closely  into 
the  situation.  As  it  is,  it  does  not  fit  very  well.  It  does  not  men- 
tion the  fish,  nor  speak  of  Jonah's  penitence,  but  quite  generally  of 
the  experiences  of  a  drowning  man,  who  seemed  doomed  to  death 
and  was  yet  wonderfully  saved  by  Yahweh  upon  whom  he  had 
called  for  help.  One  might  try  to  explain  the  non-mention  of  the 
fish  by  the  singer's  ignoring  of  the  instrument  in  his  thanks  to  the 
author  of  his  deliverance.  And  one  might  say  that  the  fish  did 
not  seem  so  important  to  the  writer  as  it  does  to  us.  But  why  does 
he  describe  so  minutely  the  sinking  down  to  the  roots  of  the  moun- 
tains and  the  wrapping  of  sea-weeds  around  the  singer's  head,  and 
say  nothing  at  all  of  the  miraculous  deliverance  by  the  fish  ?  Did 
the  latter  experience  impress  him  so  little?  Was  it  not  most  ex- 
traordinary? One  might  also,  especially  if  the  psalm  is  placed 
after  v.  "  (Engl.  v.  '"),  try  to  explain  the  lack  of  reference  to  Jonah's 
repentance  by  assuming  that  his  penitence  was  voiced  in  the  prayer 
which  he  made  according  to  v.  ^  and  as  a  result  of  which  Yahweh 
saved  him,  and  that  his  promise  to  obey  Yahweh's  command,  if 
saved,  was  expressed  in  v.  *°.  But  after  all  is  said  that  can  be  said 
for  the  fitness  of  the  psalm,  it  still  does  not  seem  to  be  the  kind  of 
psalm  which  our  author  would  have  composed  for  this  particular 
situation. 


THE   PSALM   IN   CHAPTER    2  23 

Two  possibilities  present  themselves  at  this  point.  Either  the 
author  selected  this  psalm,  which  seemed  to  him  the  most  appro- 
priate he  could  find,  and  inserted  it  after  v.  "  {sic!)  or  a  reader 
inserted  it.  If  the  latter  view  is  adopted,  we  may  either  assume 
that  the  interpolator  missed  the  prayer  referred  to  in  v.  ^  and  put 
it  purposely  after  v.  ^.  To  him  the  fish  was  the  agent  of  deliver- 
ance from  the  very  beginning,  and  he  believed  that  Jonah  could 
pray  this  psalm  of  thanksgiving  even  in  the  belly  of  the  fish.*  Or 
we  may  assume  that  a  reader  missed  an  expression  of  gratitude  on 
the  part  of  Jonah  after  he  had  been  so  miraculously  delivered  and 
thrown  up  on  the  shore  (v.  "),  and  so  he  inserted  this  psalm  in 
the  margin.  Thence  it  was  put  after  v.  ^  instead  of  after  v.  ",  as 
he  had  intended.  This  latter  view  appears  to  me  on  the  whole 
the  more  probable. 

In  any  case  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  who  placed  the  psalm 
here  interpreted  the  phrases  connected  with  drowning  literally. 
But  in  view  of  the  frequent  use  in  poetry,  cf.,  e.  g.,  Ps.  69^-  ^-  ^^  of 
figures  of  drowning  for  mortal  danger  and  illness  it  is  not  certain 
that  the  original  poet  intended  them  to  be  taken  literally.  He  may 
have  used  them  figuratively. 

The  literary  connection  with  various  postexilic  psalms  argues 
for  a  postexilic  date  of  the  psalm.  But  how  early  or  how  late 
in  the  postexilic  period  it  belongs  we  cannot  tell.  The  Heb.  is 
pure  and  no  Aram,  influence  is  apparent. 

It  has  long  been  noticed  that  the  psalm  contains  a  number  of  parallels 
to  other  psalms.  Ps.  18'  120'  use  the  same  phraseology  as  v.  '";  Ps. 
42*'>  reads  exacdy  like  v.  "''  [all  thy  breakers  and  thy  billows  have  passed 
over  me),  but  in  Ps.  42  this  is  figurative.  Ps.  31-2  is  almost  the  same 
(except  one  synonym)  as  v.  ^  (I  said,  I  am  driven  out  of  the  sight  of  Thy 
eyes).  The  connection  of  Ps.  18*  69=  with  v.  S"  is  slight.  Ps.  30^  {Yah- 
weh,  Thou  hast  brought  up  my  soul  from  Sheol)  is  quite  similar  to  v.  ". 
With  V. '  cp.  Ps.  142*  143^  {when  my  spirit  [Jonah:  soul]  fainted  within 
me);  18'  {may  He  hear  my  voice  from  His  holy  temple  and  may  my 
prayer  come  before  Him  to  His  ears);  5'  {into  Thy  holy  temple);  Ps.  88' 
{may  my  prayer  come  before  Thee).     Ps.  31'  has  the  same  phrase  {they 

*  The  similar  example  of  the  prayer  of  Azariah  and  of  the  three  men  in  the  furnace  (Dn.  3-'') 
as  well  as  of  the  inserted  prayer  of  Hannah  (i  S.  2'-'°)  or  of  the  song  of  Hezckiah  (Is.  sS^-^o) 
may  be  cited  in  support  of  "this. 


24  JONAH 

who  care  for  idols)  as  v.  '».  V.  '"  =  Ps.  42'  {imlh  loud  singing  and 
thanksgiving). 

These  literary  connections,  with  the  exception  of  v.  ^i"  =  Ps.  42">,  are 
not  striking  enough  to  prove  more  than  that  the  author  was  steeped  in 
the  religious  language  of  the  postexilic  community.  That  he  should 
have  worked  these  "quotations"  together  into  a  psalm,  taking  them 
from  these  various  other  psalms,  does  not  seem  likely,  for  the  psalm  has 
unity  and  a  certain  amount  of  originality  (cf.  vv.  *■  ').  The  phrases  it 
has  in  common  with  other  psalms  were  the  common  property  of  the 
religious  language  of  the  author's  day. 

Interpretation  0/  the  Psalm. — The  main  lines  that  have  been  followed 
in  the  course  of  the  history  of  interpretation  are  these: 

According  to  the  literal  interpretation  Jonah  is  regarded  as  actually 
praying  this  psalm  while  inside  of  the  fish.  Others  who  do  not  believe 
that  the  story  was  intended  as  actual  history,  believe  that  the  author  of 
the  story  (not  Jonah  himself)  composed  the  psalm  and  meant  it  to  be 
taken  literally  as  the  expression  of  gratitude  on  the  part  of  his  hero  for 
his  deliverance  from  drowning.  Still  others  believe  that  it  was  inserted 
(not  composed)  by  the  author  of  the  story  who  interpreted  it  literally  in 
accordance  with  the  story,  or  by  a  later  reader,  who  missed  the  prayer 
referred  to  in  v.  ^  and  supplied  it  from  some  collection  as  the  one  most 
suitable  for  Jonah's  condition. 

According  to  the  figurative  interpretation  the  expressions  for  drown- 
ing are  all  metaphors  for  deliverance  from  disaster  or  mortal  illness. 

According  to  the  allegorical  interpretation  the  psalm  refers  to  the 
Babylonian  exile.  Jonah  is  the  symbol  of  Israel,  the  fish  of  the  Bab- 
ylonian world  power.  Israel  is  singing  in  exile  this  psalm  of  thanks- 
giving, which  is  really  "a  national  liturgy."  Hpt.  varies  the  allegorical 
interpretation  somewhat  by  taking  the  psalm  as  a  "song  of  thanks  by 
Israel  for  deliverance  from  the  Syrian  persecution  under  Antiochus 
Epiphanes." 

In  regard  to  the  composition  of  the  psalm,  Bohme,  who  considers  the 
entire  psalm  as  a  later  addition,  takes  vv.  «•  "■  '  and  the  phrases  in  the 
heart  of  the  sea  (v.  <)  and  into  Thy  holy  temple  (v.  *)  as  interpolations. 
Ries.  regards  vv.  "•  '  as  the  original  prayer  of  Jonah,  the  rest  as  later 
additions.  He  singles  out  the  most  striking  and  original  lines  of  the 
psalm.  But  even  then  they  do  not  fit  the  situation  and  cannot  be  by 
the  author  of  the  story,  even  if  v.  "''  is  translated  with  ^  as  a  prayer, 
O  mayest  Thou  bring  up,  etc.  Ries.  has  perceived  this  and  tries  to  ac- 
count for  it  by  the  theory  that  the  description  of  v.  «  was  suggested  by 
another  form  of  the  Jonah  story  which  was  similar  to  that  of  Paul's 
shi{)wreck  and  to  the  Buddhist  story  of  Mittavindaka  (see  com.  on  i'). 
But  this  is  pure  assumption. 


TEXT  AND   LITERATURE  2$ 


§  7.    THE  TEXT   OF  THE  BOOK. 

The  text  is  remarkably  well  preserved,  only  a  few  emendations 
are  needed.  The  few  glosses  or  doublets  are  easily  recognised. 
On  the  use  of  the  metre  for  the  textual  and  literary  criticism  of  the 
book,  see  §  5. 

§  8.     MODERN  LITERATURE. 

(i)  Commentaries  on  all  the  Minor  Prophets. — Eichhorn,  1819; 
Ewald,  '1868  (Engl,  1875);  Hitzig,  ^1863;  Hitzig-Steiner,  "1881; 
Henderson,  1845,  ^1860;  Pusey,  1861;  Schegg,  ^1862;  Keil, 
^1873  (Engl.,  i88o)r''i888;  von  Orelli,  1888  (Engl,  1893),  ^1908; 
Farrar,  1890;  WcUhausen,  1892,  ^1898;  G.  A.  Smith,  1897-98; 
Nowack,  1898,  ^1903;  Marti,  1903;  van  Hoonacker,  1908; 
Riessler,  19 11. 

(2)  Special  Commentaries  on  Jonah. — F.  Kaulen,  Librum  Jonae 
Frophefae  exposuit,  1862;  Hugh  Martin,  The  Prophet  Jonah, 
1866,  ^1889;  P.  Kleinert,  in  L&nge' s  Bibelwerk,  1868  (Engl.,  1875), 
^1893;  M.  M.  Kalisch,  Bible  Studies,  II,  The  Book  of  Jonah,  1878; 
T.  T.  Perowne,  in  Cambridge  Bible,  1879;  ^-  Kahana,  in  his  Bib- 
Ha  Hebraica,  1906;  J.  Halevy,  Recherches  Bibliques,  IV,  1907, 
pp.  190-238;  E.  Kautzsch,  Die  Heilige  Schrijt  des  Allen  Testa- 
ments, II,  ^1910;   C.  F.  Kent,  Student's  Old  Testament,  III,  1910. 

(3)  Monographs  and  special  articles. — J.  G.  A.  Miiller,  Jona,  eine 
moralische  Erzdhlimg,  in  Paulus'  Memorabilien,  VI,  1794,  pp. 
142  _/.  J.  C.  K.  Nachtigal,  Uber  das  Btich  des  Alien  Testaments 
mit  der  Aufschrift  Jonas,  in  Eichhorn 's  Allgemeine  Bibliothek  der 
bihlischen  Litteratur,  IX,  1799,  pp.  221  ff.  P.  Friedrichsen,  Krit- 
ische  Ubersicht  der  verschiedenen  Ansichten  von  dem  Biiche  Jonas, 
nebst  einem  neuen  Versuche  uber  dasselbe,  1817,  ^1841.  F.  Hitzig, 
Des  Propheten  Jonas  Orakel  iiber  Moab  kritisch  vindicirt,  1831. 
F.  C.  Baur,  Der  Prophet  Jonas,  ein  assyrisch-babylonisches  Sym- 
bol, in  Illgen's  Zeitschrift fiir  die  historische  Theologie,  Neue  Folge, 
I,  1837,  pp.  88-114.  C.  Kohler,  Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebrder 
(quoted  by  Farrar,  The  Minor  Prophets,  p.  236.).  T.  K.  Cheyne, 
Jonah:  A  Study  in  Jewish  Folklore  and  Religion,  Theol.  Review, 


26  JONAH 

LVII,  1877,  pp.  2 1 1-2 19;  article  Jonah,  in  EB.,  II,  1901;  Critica 
Biblica,  II,  1903,  pp.  150-152.  K.  Kohler,  The  Original  Form  of 
the  Book  of  Jonah,  Theol.  Review,  1879,  PP-  ^39  Jf-  C.  H.  H. 
W'right,  Biblical  Essays,  1886,  pp.  34-98.  W.  Bohme,  Die  Kom- 
position  des  Biiches  Jona,  ZAW.,  VII,  1887,  pp.  224-284.  H.  C. 
Trumbull,  Jonah  in  Nineveh,  JBL.,  XI,  1892,  pp.  53-60.  K. 
Budde,  Vermutungen  zum  Midrasch  des  Biiches  der  Kdnige, 
ZA  W.,  XII,  1892,  pp.  37^.    John  Kennedy,  On  the  Book  of  Jonah, 

1895.  Briggs,  Works  of  the  Jmagination  in  the  OT.,  North  Amcr. 
Rev.,  1897,  pp.  3S6  ff.  B.  Wolf,  Die  Geschichte  des  Propheten 
Jona.  Nach  einer  karschunischen  Handschrifl,  1897,  '1899.  H. 
Winckler,  Zum  buche  J ona,  AOF.,  II,  1899,  pp.  260-265.  Ed.  Ko- 
nig,  article  Jonah,  in  DB.,  II,  1899.  H.  Schmfdt,  Die  Komposition 
des  Buches  Jona,  ZAW.,  XXV,  1905,  pp.  285-310;  Absicht  tmd 
Entstehungszeit  des  Buches  Jona,  TSK.,  LXXIX,  1906,  pp.  180- 
199.  P.  Haupt,  Der  assyrische  Name  des  Potwals,  AJSL.,  XXIII, 
1907,  pp.  253-263;  Jonah's  Whale,  Proceedings  of  the  Am.  Philo- 
sophical Society,  XLVI,  1907,  pp.  151-164.  Duhm,  Anmerktingen 
zu  den  Zw'olf  Propheten,  XIV,  Biich  Jona,  ZAW.,  XXXI,  191 1, 
pp.  200-204.  The  Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament  by  Eich- 
horn,   ^1824,  Reuss,  1890,  Kuenen,  1892,  Konig,  1893,  Cornill, 

1896,  ^1905  (Engl.),  Driver,  1891,  ^1909,  Baudissin,  1901,  Briggs, 
General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  1899,  Budde, 
Geschichte  der  alt  hebr  disc  hen  Litteratur,  1906;  Das  prophetische 
Schrifttum,  1906. 

On  the  Psalm  in  ch.  2. — Gunkel,  Ausgewdhlte  Psalmen,  ^1911, 
pp.  288-295,  340  ff.  W.  Stark,  Die  Lyrik  des  Allen  Testaments, 
in  Die  Schriften  des  Alien  Testaments,  1911,  pp.  98-100. 

On  Nineveh. — F.  Jones,  Topography  of  Nineveh,  JRAS.,  XV, 
1855,  pp.  297-397.  ^-  Billerbeck  and  A.  Jeremias,  Der  Unter- 
gang  Nineveh's  und  die  Weissagungschrift  des  Nahum  von  El- 
kosch,  BA.,  Ill,  1898,  pp.  Sjff.  The  articles  by  Sayce,  in  DB.,  Ill, 
1900,  and  by  Johns,  in  EB.,  Ill,  1902.  L.  W.  King,  Cuneiform 
Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets,  .  .  .  in  the  British  Museum,  Part 
XXVI,  1909. 

(4)  Parallel  Stories. — Especially  Leo  Frobenius,  Die  Weltan- 
schauung der  Naturvdlker,  1898  (E^ngl.  transl.,  Childhood  of  Man, 


LITERATURE  2^ 

1908);  id.,  Aus  den  Flegeljahren  der  Menschheit,  1901;  id.,  Das 
Zeitalter  des  Sonnengoltes,  1904.  Radermacher,  Walfischmythen, 
ARW.,  1906,  pp.  251^.  H.  Schmidt,  Jona.  Eine  Untersuchung 
zur  vergleichenden  Religionsgeschichte,  1907. 

(5)  Text  and  Metre. — W.  Wright,  The  Book  of  Jonah  in  .  .  . 
Chaldee,  Syriac,  Aethiopic  and  Arabic,  1857.  Vollers,  Das  Do- 
dekapropheton  der  Alexandriner,  ZAW.,  IV,  1884,  pp.  18^.  Se- 
bok,  Die  Syrische  Ubersctzung  der  zwolf  kleinen  Propheten,  1887. 
Graetz,  Emendationes  in  plerosque  sacrae  Scripturae  Veteris  Tes- 
tamenti  libros,  II,  1893.  P^hrlich,  Mikrd  ki-Pheshuto,  III,  1901. 
Sievers,  Metrische  Studien,  I,  1901,  pp.  482-485;  id.,  Alttesta- 
mentliche  Miscellen,  2,  in  Berichte  iiber  d.  Verhandl.  d.  kgl.  sdchs. 
Ges.  d.  Wiss.,  57,  Band,  1905,  pp.  35-45.  Rahmer,  Hieronymus' 
Commentar  zu  den  zwolf  kleinen  Propheten,  1902.  Oesterley,  The 
Old  Latin  Texts  of  the  Minor  Prophets,  III,  ITS.,  V,  1904,  pp. 
378-381;  id..  Codex  Taurinensis  (Y),  JTS.,  VII,  1906,  pp.  520- 
526.  Nowack,  in  Kittel's  Biblia  Hebraica,  1906.  Erbt,  Elia, 
Elisa,  Jona,  1907.  Duhm,  Die  zwolf  Propheten  in  den  Versmassen 
der  Urschrift  fiber setzt,  19 10. 


COMMENTARY  ON  JONAH. 

JONAH'S   DISOBEDIENCE  AND   FLIGHT    (i^-^). 

Jonah  is  commanded  by  Yahweh  to  go  on  a  prophetic  mission  to 
Nineveh  but  refuses,  and  tries  to  escape  from  this  obligation  by  flee- 
ing on  a  ship  to  Tarshish. 

1.  The  tale  begins  with  And  the  word  of  Yahweh  came  to  Jonah, 
the  son  of  Amittai,  as  if  it  were  a  continuation,  or  as  if  it  had  been 
originally  one  of  a  cycle  of  stories.  But  the  phrase  and  it  came 
to  pass  had  in  course  of  time  become  so  much  used  in  narratives 
that  it  could  stand  at  the  beginning  of  a  story  without  requiring 
an  antecedent.  Thus  i  Samuel,  Ruth,  Judges,  Esther,  Nehe- 
miah,  Ezekiel  begin  with  it.  On  Jonah,  the  son  of  Amittai,  from 
Gath-Hepher  in  Zebulon  see  2  K.  14^  and  pp.  8/.  How  the  divine 
revelation  came  to  Jonah  is  not  specified.  Whether  it  was  accom- 
panied by  a  vision  or  an  audition,  or  whether  it  was  the  voice  in 
his  soul  that  Jonah  recognised  as  Yahweh's  command,  the  author 
does  not  say.  If  the  story  were  history,  we  would  wish  to  know 
how  such  a  striking  revelation  could  have  come  to  Jonah,  what  the 
historical  situation  was,  and  what  his  own  moral  and  prophetic 
preparation  for  this  kind  of  a  message  consisted  in.  To  try  to 
account  for  it  psychologically  is  however  gratuitous,  since  the 
story  is  a  parable  and  not  a  historical  account. — 2.  Nineveh, 
Assy.  Nind  and  Ninud,  was  situated  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the 
Tigris  opposite  the  modern  Mosul,  north  of  the  greater  Zab.  It 
was  a  very  ancient  city  founded  most  probably  by  the  Babylonians, 
Gn.  10*^  ^•.  Sennacherib  strongly  fortified  it  and  made  it  the  capi- 
tal of  Assyria.  But  its  time  of  splendour  lasted  only  a  century,  for 
in  606  B.C.  it  was  destroyed  by  the  Medes.  It  was  never  rebuilt. 
Our  narrator  calls  Nineveh  that  great  city  also  in  3^  4".  It  was 
important  for  his  purpose  to  emphasise  that  it  was  such  a  great 
city,  full  of  human  beings,  cf.  4".    But  it  was  no  longer  in  exist- 

28 


I^- '  29 

ence  in  his  day,,  for  he  speaks  of  it  in  3^  as  a  city  of  the  past.  The 
reason  why  he  chose  Nineveh  as  the  place  to  which  Jonah  was  to 
go,  becomes  clear  as  the  story  proceeds.  Nineveh  was  the  capital 
of  the  Assyrians,  the  bitterest  enemies  of  Israel  in  pre-exilic  times, 
and  as  such  the  best  illustration  for  the  author's  teaching.  Even 
these  cruel  Assyrians  were  objects  of  Yahweh's  care.  Even  to 
them  He  gives  an  opportunity  to  repent,  and  thus  to  avert  the  pun- 
ishment due  to  them.  What  Jonah  was  to  proclaim  or  preach  is 
not  specified  here,  but  cj.  3*,  for  the  clause  because  their  wickedness 
is  come  up  to  me  gives  the  cause  of  Yahweh's  message  not  its  con- 
tent. Yahweh  dwells  in  heaven  and  so  the  writer  in  naive  but 
graphic  fashion  says,  the  complaint  {cf.  (^'s  interpretation)  over 
Nineveh's  awful  wickedness  had  come  up  and  appealed  to  Him, 
accusing  and  demanding  justice,  cf.  Gn.  4^"  18"^  i  S.  5^^  La.  i^^. 
In  what  the  wickedness  consisted  is  not  specified,  but  we  know 
Assyria's  cruelties  from  her  own  inscriptions  as  well  as  from  Na. 
2"-  ^^  3^-  ^^.  Yahweh  is  no  longer  a  local  or  national  deity,  but  the 
God  of  the  whole  earth,  who  punishes  wickedness  wherever  He 
finds  it.  Cf.  Am.  i  /.  The  emphasis  on  Yahweh's  sense  of 
justice  is  necessary  for  the  further  development  of  the  story. — 3. 
Jonah  refused  to  obey  the  command.  He  did  rise,  but — to  flee 
from  the  presence  of  God  and  to  escape  from  his  duty.  That  he 
should  at  once  have  made  up  his  mind  to  flee  to  Tarshish  is  un- 
likely. But  when  he  arrived  at  Joppa  and  found  the  ship  about  to 
sail  for  Tarshish  he  quickly  decided  to  take  passage.  The  first 
mention  of  Tarshish  in  our  text  is  therefore  either  due  to  prolepsis 
or,  more  likely,  it  is  a  later  insertion.  Tarshish  {cf.  Gn.  10^)  is 
most  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  Greek  Tartessos  in  the 
SW.  of  Spain,  near  the  mouth  of  the  Guadalquivir  River  (Herod- 
otus, I,  163,  IV,  152).  It  was  most  probably  an  ancient  Semitic 
colony  {cf.  Is.  23*-  *•  ^^),  whose  mineral  trade  with  Tyre  is  men- 
tioned in  Ez.  27*^  {cf.  also  Je.  10®).*  It  appears  to  have  been  the 
farthest  point  W.  to  which  the  Phoenician  merchants  went  on  their 

*  Other  identifications  of  Tarshish,  e.  g.,  with  Tarsus  in  Cilicia  (Josephus)  or  Tunis  (.\E.) 
or  Carthage  ((8  in  Ez.  27  and  Is.  23)  are  now  generally  given  up.  Cj.  EB.,  IV,  4897  if.,  DB., 
IV,  683  ff.  The  identification  with  the  land  of  the  TjTseni,  Etruscans  (Knobel,  Frz.  Del., 
W.  M.  Miiller)  does  not  commend  itself  either.  And  still  less  does  Chc.'s  suggestion,  involv- 
ing an  emendation,  that  it  was  the  north  Arabian  .^sshur. 


30  JONAH 

large,  sea-going  vessels,  sometimes  called  Tarshish-ships,  not  be- 
cause they  all  went  to  Tarshish,  but  because  they  belonged  to  the 
class  that  could  make  such  extended  tours.  Cf.  East  India-men. 
In  going  to  Tarshish  the  author  represents  Jonah  as  going  not 
only  exactly  in  the  opposite  direction  of  Nineveh  but  also  as  try- 
ing to  flee  as  far  as  possible  away  from  Yahweh's  presence.  The 
phrase  away  from  the  face,  or  presence,  of  Yahweli  is  equivalent  to 
away  from  Yaliweli's  land.  Cf.  Gn.  4**  i  S.  26*®  ^-  2  K.  5^^  13-- 
ly-"-  ^  Je.  2f°.  Jonah  was  trying  to  flee  from  Palestine  in  order 
to  escape  a  second  command  of  Yahweh.  Just  as  a  modern  be- 
liever sometimes  thinks  of  special  places  where  God  is  more  likely 
to  reveal  himself  than  at  others,  because  he  has  experienced  there 
communion  with  Him,  so  Jonah  contrariwise  in  spite  of  his  more 
advanced  conception  of  God  (cf  v.  ®)  thinks  he  can  escape  from 
the  presence  of  God  by  fleeing  as  far  as  possible  away  from  the 
place  where  the  command  of  Yahweh  had  reached  him  and  where 
He  would  most  likely  reveal  Himself  again  to  him.  Even  in  still 
later  days  Palestine  was  regarded  as  the  place  of  Yahweh's  special 
manifestation  and  presence,  though  the  belief  in  His  omnipresence 
had  long  been  taught  by  prophets  and  psalmists.  The  reason  of 
Jonah's  disobedience  and  flight  is  not  given  here,  but  it  is  explicitly 
stated  by  him  in  4^.  It  required  no  special  prophetic  endowment 
to  divine  that  Yahweh  had  a  redemptive  purpose  in  this  mission. 
Else  He  might  have  instructed  Jonah  to  give  the  prediction  of 
Nineveh's  downfall  in  Palestine.  Jonah  would  gladly  have  done 
this.  But  to  go  to  Nineveh  and  give  the  message  there  could  im- 
ply only  one  thing,  that  he  should  warn  the  Ninevites  and  try  to 
bring  about  their  repentance.* 

Yapho,  the  nearest  seaport  of  Jerusalem,  is  the  modern  JaflFa, 
ar.  Ydfa,  the  Greek  ^Iottttt],  Acts  9^".  It  has  retained  its  location 
and  name  all  through  the  centuries.     In  Egyptian  inscriptions  it 

*  The  rabbis  tried  to  find  a  high  motive  in  this  wholly  unparalleled  behaviour  of  a  Heb. 
prophet  and  so  declared  that  Jonah  fled  because  he  knew  that  the  Ninevites  would  readily 
avail  themselves  of  the  means  of  averting  the  coining  disaster,  and  repent,  and  thus  make  Israel's 
disobedience  to  Yahweh's  warning  by  His  prophets  and  her  perseverance  in  sin  appear  all  ihe 
more  heinous  and  worthy  of  punishment,  and  her  ruin  inevitable.  Rather  than  do  this,  he 
disol)cycd  and  fled.  He  was  willing  to  perish  (c/.  v.  '*)  and  like  Moses  (Ex.  32^)  give  his 
life  for  his  people  rather  ^han  bring  about  the  destruction  of  Israel  by  his  obedience.  See  Rah- 
mcr,  pp.  14  /.,  where  the  Jcvvirh  sources  arc  quoted. 


is  called  Yepu,  in  the  Amarna  letters  Yapu,  in  Assyrian  inscrip- 
tions Yapu,  Yappn.  See  EB.,  II,  2573/.,  DB.,  II,  755/.  Already 
in  eariy  days  a  seaport,  it  was  not  Israelitish  till  captured  by  Jona- 
than in  148  B.C.  (i  Mac.  10^^),  though  cargo  destined  for  Jerusalem 
was  shipped  to  Joppa  and  unloaded  there  in  early  postexilic  times 
(r/.  Ezr.  3^),  and  indeed  as  early  as  the  time  of  Solomon,  if  we 
may  trust  the  Chronicler,  2  Ch.  2^",  cf.  i  K.  5"  (Heb.  5^). 

In  Joppa  Jonah  found  a  ship  which  was  about  to  sail  for  Tar- 
shish.  With  quick  determination  he  paid  his  fare  and  went  aboard 
to  sail  with  them,  i.  e.,  with  the  sailors  of  the  ship,  to  Tarshish  to 
get  as  far  as  possible  from  the  awful  presence  of  Yahweh.  There  is 
a  fine  touch  of  irony  in  the  repetition  of  this  little  phrase.  Such 
details  as  where  Jonah  got  the  money  for  his  fare  do  not  trouble 
the  narrator,  who  differs  here  from  his  Jewish  commentators  to 
whom  the  use  of  the  fem.  suffix  (her  fare)  seemed  to  indicate  that 
Jonah  paid  the  price  of  the  whole  ship.  Yalkut  naively  remarks, 
"Jonah  was  rich." 

1.  The  name  Jonah  means  dove,  cf.  p.  8.  ^nm  CS  B  Atnathi  & 
^nn.  TiDN  is  a  derivation  of  ni2N,  cf.  'an  ,^lSn.  To  safeguard  the  pro- 
nunciation a  number  of  mss.  read  >n'D>*.  There  was  a  Heb.  tradition 
that  the  widow  of  Sarepta  who  was  regarded  as  Jonah's  mother  called  her 
son  TisN  p  =  son  of  truth  because  Elijah  had  spoken  the  truth  to  her, 
cf.  I  K.  172',  the  word  of  Yahweh  in  thy  mouth  is  truth,  ncx.  Siev.  re- 
garded \i2«  p  as  an  insertion  from  2  K.  14",  Wkl.,  on  the  other  hand, 
followed  by  Ries.,  as  interpolated  in  2  K.  142^  from  Jon.  i'.  But  Siev. 
and  Wkl.  have  withdrawn  their  assertion.  Wkl.'s  argument  from  Heb. 
usage  is  untenable.  He  thinks  that  invariably  either  the  father's  name 
or  the  birthplace  are  mentioned  but  never  both.  See  however  i  K.  19'', 
Elisha,  the  son  of  Shephat  of  Abelmeholah. — 2.  Nip  ©  explains  correctly 
^ajriN.  n^Sjj  =  h^Sn  3=.  That  Sy  is  a  local  prep.  =  upon,  in  Nineveh, 
is  most  improbable.  ^>'  and  ':'!<  are  frequently  confused  and  later  on 
meant  almost  the  same,  esp.  to  the  copyists.  05  adds  Kpavyi)  =  npyi 
before  on3,n,  cf.  Gn.  1820.  We.,  van  H.  translate  '3  by  that,  as  if  it  gave 
the  contents  of  the  message. — 3.  The  first  riV^v-\r\  is  omitted  by  Bohme 
and  Siev.,  not  only  mtr.  cs.  but  also  for  the  reasons  stated  above.  Je- 
rome had  already  noted  its  strangeness  but  did,  of  course,  not  omit  the 
first  Tarshish.  He  used  it  in  justification  of  the  general  meaning  of 
Tarshish  =  n^\,  sea,  which  QI  gives.  r\\n>  ubSd  21  paraphrases  both 
times  '"T  vNtra  i3j.-ixt  Dip  \n.  nsa  prtc.  of  imminent  fut.,  Ges.  ^  "s^.  The 
verb  X13  is  only  rarely  used  of  going  away  from  the  speaker,  but  whea 


32  JONAH 

so  used  the  limit  of  the  motion  is  given,  Is.  22'5  Ez.  3*  "  Gn.  45''  i  S.  22* 
Is.  475  Nu.  328,  cf.  BDB.  Siev.  inserts  njv  after  |n''i.  onry  u*///!  //lem, 
i.  e.,  the  sailors,  who  belong  io  the  ship.  At  the  end  ^  repeats  nnaS 
before  nin>  ^joSs.  mjiy  (5  transl.  rd  I'aOXoi'  avroO,  as  if  it  were  ii3B'.  a 
correct  interpretation.  3.  -nM  is  the  Ileb.  idiom,  went  dcrw-n  into  the 
ship,  we  say  we)U  on  board,  German,  bcstieg  es. 


THE  STORM   ON  THE  SEA   (i^-«). 

Ya/iTvch  pursues  Jonah  in  a  terrible  storm.  The  sailors  try  to 
save  the  ship  first  by  prayer  then  by  lightening  it  as  much  as  pos- 
sible. Jonah,  who  had  fallen  asleep  in  a  corner  of  the  lower  deck,  is 
also  ordered  by  the  captain  to  pray  to  I  lis  God. 

4.  Jonah  cannot  escape  God.  Yahweh  hurls  suddenly  a  ter- 
rible storm  upon  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  evidently  not  long  after 
the  ship  had  left  Joppa.  With  a  few  strokes  the  author  pictures 
the  terrible  danger.  The  ship  threatened  to  break  in  pieces,  whether 
by  the  force  of  the  waves  or  by  being  driven  upon  the  reefs  which 
make  the  Palestinian  coast  so  dangerous,  the  author  does  not  say. 
It  is  a  vivid  word  he  uses,  for  it  represents  the  ship  as  an  animate 
being,  agitated,  full  of  fear,  lit.,  it  thought  it  would  be  broken  in 
pieces.  Whether  the  writer  was  conscious  of  this  force  when  he 
wrote  the  word  we  cannot  tell.  Cf.  Mk.  4". — 5.  The  storm  was 
so  fierce  that  the  seamen  became  frightened.  They  were  no  He- 
brews, but  probably  Phoenicians,  either  natives  or  colonists;  some 
may  have  been  of  other  nationalities.  They  invoked  the  help  of 
their  various  deities,  each  one  crying  to  his  own  god,  "ignorant  of 
the  truth,  but  not  ignorant  of  the  rule  of  providence"  (Jerome). 
After  the  instinctive  yielding  to  the  impulse  to  pray  they  at  once 
set  to  work  to  do  all  they  could  to  save  the  ship.  They  threw  over- 
board the  tackle  and  utensils,  whether  also  the  cargo  is  not  alto- 
gether  certain  (though  the  Heb.  term  may  include  it),  in  order  to 
get  relief  from  the  burden  of  anxiety  which  lay  upon  them.  We 
speak  of  lightening  the  ship,  so  that  it  may  more  easily  respond  to 
the  rudders  and  the  oars.  The  Heb.  thinks  of  the  weight  as  rest- 
ing as  a  burden  on  the  mind.  For  a  similar  use  of  the  phrase,  cf. 
Ex.  18".  Meanwhile  Jonah  was  unconscious  of  it  all.  He  had 
gone  down  to  the  lower  deck,  and  there  he  had  laid  himself  down 


I"  "  33 

in  a  corner  and  had  fallen  into  a  deep  sleep.  WTiether  his  sleep 
was  due  to  his  extreme  exhaustion  produced  by  his  hasty  flight 
or  to  some  other  cause  the  writer  does  not  say.  His  commentators 
have  thought  it  worth  while  to  disagree  about  it.  For  the  narra- 
tive itself  this  sleep  is  important  because  it  explains  what  Jonah 
was  doing  in  this  hour  of  danger.  It  satisfies  the  reader's  or  lis- 
tener's curiosity  and  prepares  for  the  graphic  and  interesting  in- 
terview of  the  captain  with  Jonah. — 6.  The  captain  in  going  all 
over  the  ship  came  upon  the  sleeping  Jonah  in  his  corner  on  the 
lower  deck.  In  his  astonishment  he  shouts,  what  do  you  mean  by 
sleeping!  how  can  you  sleep  in  such  a  storm!  get  up  and  pray 
to  thy  God!  Astonishment  is  certainly  in  his  tone,  but  whether 
also  harshness  and  threat  we  cannot  tell.  He  does  not  recognise 
him  as  a  Hebrew  nor  does  he  mention  the  name  of  Jonah's  God. 
Still  less  does  he  recognise  him  as  a  prophet  whose  prayer  would 
be  especially  efficacious.  He  wants  him  to  do  something  and  not 
lie  around  and  sleep.  Perhaps  the  God  (here  not  equivalent  to 
God,  the  one  absolute  ruler  of  the  world,  but  rather=///y  God)  will 
give  a  thought  to  us  and  help  us  so.  that  we  do  not  perish.  The  at- 
tention of  the  deity  is  called  to  the  suppliant  by  his  prayer.  He 
may  have  forgotten  or  overlooked  him.  There  is  no  hint  that  the 
captain  thought  that  Jonah  had  intentionally  refrained  from  pray- 
ing and  that  he  feared  that  Jonah's  defiance  of  God  was  ominous. 
In  such  fearful  danger  every  one  must  do  his  share,  no  one  must 
be  idle.  Since  the  sailors  were  doing  all  they  could  to  save  the 
ship,  the  only  thing  that  Jonah  could  do  was  to  pray.  What  a 
scene!  The  heathen  sailor  admonishes  the  Heb.  prophet  to  pray! 
The  narrator  does  not  tell  whether  Jonah  obeyed  the  command 
and  we  may  therefore  think  that  this  was  self-evident  and  for  that 
reason  omitted,  or  preferably  that  he  simply  rose  and  followed  the 
captain  to  the  upper  deck.  That  he  should  have  stayed  where  he 
was,  and  proceeded  to  sleep  again  after  the  captain  had  left  him, 
is  excluded  by  the  following.  Thoughts  such  as,  e.  g.,  how  could  he 
pray  to  Yahweh  in  his  disobedience,  did  not  trouble  the  nairrator. 
The  story  moves  quickly  and  passes  over  these  details.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  the  assumption  that  the  stranger's  God  is  perhaps 
willing  to  help  them  all,  if  only  his  attention  is  directed  to  their  need. 


34  JONAH 

4.  Note  the  emphatic  position  of  nin^i,  biU  Yahweh  on  his  part.— 
S^an  is  one  of  the  author's  favourite  words,  cf.  i'-  '2-  '\  (g  om.  nVn.1,  so 
also  GASm.,  Now.^  (but  not  Now.*^).  dvtSn  =  o^n-^j:.  GASin.  om. 
D'3.  laii'^i''  '^?V'">  ^  periclilabalur  conleri.  JH  N"i3nNS  N^;"2,  sought  to 
break  in  pieces.  The  French  penser  is  used  in  the  same  way. — 5.  QI 
adds  after  and  they  cried  each  one  to  his  God:  ^nx  pna  n'5  'iff  irni, 
and  when  they  saw  that  it  was  of  no  use.  D^Sjn  cf.  (TKeitf,  Acts  27".  njvi 
is  a  circumstantial  clause,  and  as  such  to  be  translated  by  the  plupf .,  else 
we  get  the  unjustifiable  meaning  that  he  went  down  at  the  time  of  the 
storm  when  the  others  were  doing  all  they  could  to  save  the  ship.  This 
is  most  improbable,  nj^con  ^noT,  the  innermost  parts  of  the  lower  deck, 
Ul  i<'\v  i'T'ip.N'j'.  The  unusual  word  hjidd  which  occurs  only  here  in  the 
OT.  is  frequent  in  Aram.,  but  this  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  it  is 
an  Aram,  loan-word.  On  the  contrary  from  the  root  jdd  we  get  the  idea 
that  it  means  properly  the  covered  ship,  the  vessel  with  a  deck,  and  there- 
fore here,  where  the  lower  deck  is  referred  to,  nrcD  is  more  properly  used 
than  H'jN.  It  so  happens  that  this  is  the  only  occurrence  of  the  word  in 
the  OT.,  but  also  the  only  passage  where  the  lower  deck  is  referred  to. 
Du.  transl.  correctly,  in  deft  dussersten  Winkel  des  Verdecks.  ai"i;2 
pausal  form  with  pathah,  Ges. '5'"'.  The  vb.  is  used  of  deep,  heavy 
sleep. — 6.  Since  San  is  a  denominative  from  San,  rope,  it  means  rope- 
puller,  sailor,  Ez.  278-  ''•  "•  29.  Cf.  Q-i?,  vineyard-keeper  from  07:,  vine- 
yard. For  the  use  of  the  coll.  sg.  in  this  connection  cf  D'^D  31,  chief 
eunuch,  2  K.  18".  Tlve  prtc.  mnj  is  not  vocative  (O  sleeper,  AV.,  RV.), 
in  which  case  it  should  have  the  art.,  but  it  is  used  here  as  anaj's 
in  I  S.  2^*  or  as  the  inf.  in  Ps.  50'*  with  "iS  ns,  cf  Ges.  's'-'i'-,  =  what 
are  you  doing  asleep  ?  what  do  you  mean  by  sleeping  ?  nrjT^  is  used  else- 
where only  in  Dn.  6'  m^rj),  and  is  clearly  an  Aramaism.  It  means  to 
think,  B  recogitet.  uS  for  us,  for  our  benefit.  Cf.  *?  y-i'n,  Ps.  40". 
Che.  emends  to  3rnn>  (or  aK'n"),  EB.,  II,  2566  n.  2.  iil  ain->n>,  GASm. 
similarly:  will  be  gracious,  (S  Siacrdxry  =  jr'ti'ii,  wj7/  save,  so  also  ft.  But 
fH  is  correct. 

THE   DISCOVERY   OF   JONAH   AS  THE   GUILTY 

ONE   (i"-'»). 

Believing  that  the  storm  was  sent  by  a  deity  in  pursuit  of  a 
guilty  offender  on  board  their  own  vessel,  the  sailors  throw  lots  to 
discover  him.  The  lot  falls  on  Jonah.  The  men  ask  him  for  par- 
ticulars about  himself  and  lie  confesses  to  their  horror  that  lie  is  a 
Hebrew  who  is  fleeing  from  Yahweh,  the  God  of  heaven,  the  creator 
of  the  dry  land  and  0/  the  sea. 


i'-"  35 

7.  After  V.  ^  there  is  a  brief  pause  in  the  narrative.  Some  think 
that  something  has  been  lost,  but  that  is  hardly  necessary.  The 
storm  shows  no  sign  of  abating,  and  the  sailors  now  fear  that  an 
offended  god  has  sent  the  storm  on  account  of  some  one  on  the 
ship  whom  he  wants  to  punish.  This  is  an  old  belief,  cj.  Jos. 
7^"  ^-  I  S.  14'*^  *^-,  shared  by  many  peoples  of  antiquity.  Of  course, 
not  every  storm  was  interpreted  as  a  sign  of  wrath  on  the  part  of 
the  deity.  It  was  not  until  the  sailors  had  exhausted  every  other 
means  that  they  thought  of  this  last  possibility.  But  how  could 
the  guilty  one  be  discovered  ?  Where  man's  wisdom  is  not  suffi- 
cient, the  divine  decision  is  sought.  The  narrator  uses  here  a 
device  that  is  common  all  through  antiquity,  the  casting  of  lots, 
cj.  Pr.  16^  Acts  i^^.  Even  the  Urim  and  Tummim  were  sacred 
lots  through  which  Yahweh  announced  His  will.  The  decision  of 
the  lot  was  authoritative  and  final,  because  it  was  regarded  as 
God's  own  decision.  And  they  said  one  to  another,  come  let  us 
cast  lots,  that  we  may  know  for  whose  sake  this  disaster  has  come 
upon  us.  Evil  is  here  physical  evil,  misfortune,  disaster.  The 
lots  w^re  either  stones  or  other  articles.  When  the  lot  fell  upon 
Jonah  there  was  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  men  that  he  was  the 
cause  of  the  deity's  anger,  and  they  would,  of  course,  not  ask  him 
after  the  decision  to  tell  them /or  whose  sake  this  disaster  had  come 
upon  them,  as  M.  intimates  in  a  gloss  on  v.  ^. — There  is  an  exact 
parallel  to  this  episode  in  the  Buddhist  story  of  Mittavindaka  from 
Benares,  who  had  gone  to  sea  in  disobedience  to  the  command  of 
his  mother.  The  ship  suddenly  came  to  a  stop  on  the  sea  and 
could  not  be  made  to  proceed.  The  sailors  cast  lots  in  order  to 
discover  on  .whose  account  this  calamity  had  happened.  Three 
times  the  lot  marked  Mittavindaka  as  the  guilty  one.  Whereupon 
the  sailors  set  him  adrift  on  a  float  with  virtually  the  same  words 
that  the  sailors  use  as  they  throw  Jonah  overboard,  "many  must 
not  perish  on  account  of  this  one."  The  boat  then  continued  its 
trip.  (E.  Hardy,  Jona  c.  i  und  Jdt.  439,  in  ZDMG.,  1896,  p. 
153). — 8.  The  strange  passenger  may  have  excited  the  suspicion 
of  the  sailors  before,  they  knew  nothing  of  him,  he  was  none  of 
their  number.  So  they  naturally  want  to  find  out  what  kind  of 
man  he  is  and  ask  him.  What  is  thy  business  ?  sc.  here  on  this  ship, 


36  JONAH 

why  are  you  taking  this  trip?  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  ques- 
tion, rather  than  what  is  thy  occupation,  as  if  that  were  the  reason 
for  God's  anger.  Tell  us,  where  dost  thou  come  from?  What  is 
thy  (native)  country?  And  what  is  thy  nationality? — 9.  Jonah's 
answer  is  brief  and  remarkable.  He  only  replies  to  the  ques- 
tion of  his  nationality,  /  am  a  Hebrew.  This  is  the  name  which 
Israelites  use  with  foreigners,  cf.  Gn.  40^''  Ex.  2^  3^*,  etc.  Na- 
tionality and  religion  go  together:  And  I  worship  Yahweh,  the 
God  of  heaven  who  made  the  sea  and  the  dry  land.  He  does  not 
insist  on  his  special  piety,  but  simply  on  his  religious  connec- 
tion. He  is  a  Yahweh  worshipper.  And  quite  in  prophetic  style 
he  proceeds  to  describe  Yahweh  as  the  God  of  heaven.  This  was 
a  common  title  of  Yahweh  in  postexilic  times,  as  not  only  the  docu- 
ments in  the  book  of  Ezra  but  also  the  Jewish  Aramaic  papyri  of 
Elephantine  show.  Yahweh 's  omnipotence  and  transcendence 
are  expressed  in  this  appellation.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Jonah  adds  at  once  to  this  confession  before  the  Phoenician  sailors, 
some  of  whom  worshipped  as  their  chief  god  Baal  Shdmen=lhe 
Lord  of  heaven,  that  Yahweh  had  mcuie  the  sea  and  the  dry  land. 
By  proclaiming  himself  a  servant  of  Yahweh,  the  God  of  heaven, 
who  had  made  and  who  controlled  the  sea  and  the  dry  land,  he 
made  clear  that  Yahweh  had  sent  this  storm  upon  the  sea.  And 
since  the  lot  had  pointed  him  out  as  the  culprit,  that  Yahweh  was 
pursuing  him.  The  narrator  does  not  represent  Jonah  as  becom- 
ing conscious  of  the  incongruity  of  his  flight  and  of  his  belief, 
though  Jonah  realises  that  he  cannot  escape  Yahweh  anywhere  on 
land  or  sea.  Such  contradictions  in  religious  belief  and  practice 
are  frequent  enough  in  life.  Note  the  incongruity  of  believing 
in  monotheism  and  at  the  same  time  denying  God's  relation  of 
grace  and  love  to  the  nations,  which  our  author  combats.  Now 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  simple  and  beautiful  dignity  of  Jo- 
nah's answer  is  most  surprising  and  altogether  unexpected  at  this 
point.  It  is  sometimes  claimed  that  Jonah  in  giving  this  answer 
had  become  Yahweh's  missionary  to  the  heathen  in  spite  of  him- 
self. But  that  was  surely  not  in  the  author's  mind.  And  it  seems 
much  more  likely  and  much  more  in  keeping  with  the  entire  nar- 
rative to  assume  that  originally  the  text  read  here  slightly  differ- 


I'"- "  37 

ently,  /  am  fleeing  from  Yahweh,  the  God  of  heaven,  etc.  This 
was  changed  later,  accidentally  or  purposely,  to  /  worship  Yah- 
weh, the  God  of  heaven. — 10.  Jonah's  confession  produced  great 
fear  among  the  sailors.  They  did  not  know  the  reason  of  his  flight, 
for  he  had  not  said  anything  about  it  to  them.  They  thought  him 
a  criminal,  perhaps  a  murderer  fleeing  from  justice,  whom  the 
angry  god  (who  was  in  control  of  the  sea  as  well  as  of  the  dry  land) 
was  pursuing  in  the  storm  on  the  sea.  And  full  of  horror  they 
exclaimed,  What  hast  thou  done!  They  do  not  ask  for  information 
about  the  nature  of  his  crime,  but  are  horrified  at  his  bold  attempt 
to  flee  from  the  Almighty  God.  The  author  of  the  alteration  in 
V.  *  added  in  v.  ^^,  as  an  explanation  of  the  exclamation  of  the 
sailors,  for  the  men  knew  that  he  was  fleeing  from  the  presence  of 
Yahweh.  And  a  reader  of  the  altered  text  of  v.  ^,  wondering  how 
the  sailors  could  know  why  he  had  fled,  and  interpreting  their 
knowledge  in  line  with  vv.  ^'^,  wrote  in  the  margin,  for  he  had  told 
them.  This  was  introduced  into  the  text  later  on.  But  its  second- 
ariness  is  apparent  from  the  awkward  construction  in  which  the 
two  causal  sentences  follow  each  other  without  connection. 

7.  ''d'^B'3,  consists  of  3  +  a-  +  S  +  ■>d.  Therel.  part,  f  =  t-'n,  is  used 
occasionally  in  early  N.  Israelitish,  frequently  in  later  writings,  prevail- 
ingly in  NH.  S  was  joined  to  z\  cf.  Aram.  S^i,  always  before  pron.  sfs., 
•'Sr,  etc.,  cf.  V. '-.  So  here  ■'^Si:'.  By  the  addition  of  '?  the  whole  becomes 
interrogative,  on  account  of  whom  ?  \\t.  on  account  of  that  which  concerns 
whom?  See  v. «.  Cf.  BDB.,  Ges.  ^"^o^  ^  na  s,-,3.— 8.  ^cS  tj-no  is 
the  Heb.  equivalent  of  ^cSa'a,  but  is  so  singular  and  clumsy  that  it  can 
only  be  regarded  as  an  explanation  of  "'cStt'3,  and  since  the  whole  sen- 
tence uS  PNtn  r^y\r^  ^dS  la'Na  is  merely  a  repetition  of  v.  '"^^,  we  may  be 
sure  that  we  have  to  do  with  a  marg.  n.  which  found  its  way  into  the 
text.  The  question  is,  moreover,  meaningless  here,  since  the  men  had 
discovered  by  lot  who  the  guilty  one  was.  It  is  not  found  in  several 
Heb.  mss.  or  in  S^'*  and  is  omitted  by  many  scholars.  Orelli,  who  de- 
fends its  genuineness,  thinks  that  the  men  wanted  to  find  out  whether 
Jonah  was  veiling  to  acknowledge  his  guilt  and  thus  confirm  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  lot.  iPDs'^o  na  what  is  thy  business  ?  Ehr.  correctly, 
was  ist  der  Zweck  deiner  Reise  ?  Pu.  "this  particular  business  in  which 
he  was  engaged,  and  for  which  he  was  come  on  board."  Siev.  takes  it 
as  meaning,  what  hast  thou  done  ? — 9.  ''">3",  (5  SoCXos  Kvplov  =  nin^  ^3". 
<8  took  the  >  for  an  abbreviated  r^y^^.   M,  is  preferable.   ®  nN-iin\    Siev. 


38  JONAH 

om.  the  Cod  of  heaven  and  regards  also  the  rel.  d.  who  has  made  the  sea 
and  the  dry  land  as  a  gloss  intended  to  heighten  the  religicjus  clement  of 
the  text.  He  explains  v.  "*  /  am  afraid  of  Yahweh  that  is  why  I  hid 
myself,  and  fmds  that  with  this  confession  the  proud  assertion  of  belief 
in  Vahweh  as  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth  and  the  sea  is  not  com- 
patible. His  main  argument  is  however  metrical,  the  words  do  not  fit 
into  the  hexameter  scheme  in  which,  ace.  to  Siev.,  the  Book  of  Jonah  is 
composed. 

In  our  exposition  we  have  assumed  as  the  orig.  text  •'JN  'nin>  •'js'^n 
n-\z  (with  Kohler,  Bu.). — 10.  r\-\2,  prtc.  denotes  present  continuance 
of  the  action.  We.,  Now.,  Marti,  Siev.  omit  dhS  T-jn  ^3  as  a  gloss. 
The  rest  of  v.  "">  must  also  be  omitted  as  secondary  (with  Bohme,  Bu., 
Wkl.).  Wkl.  transposes  v.'"  after  v.',  regards  v.  '<"'  and  in  v.  *»  the 
phrases,  and  they  said  to  him  and  on  whose  account  has  this  evil  come 
to  us?  as  secondary.  But  this  is  not  necessary.  n'S';'  .^Kr  n:;  is  not  a 
question  for  information,  but  an  exclamation  of  horror.     Cf.  Gn.  3". 


THE   STILLING   OF  THE   STORM  BY  THROWING 
JONAH   INTO  THE   SEA   (i"-'«). 

Anxiously  the  sailors  ask  Jonah  what  tJiey  should  do  with 
him  in  order  that  the  storm  may  cease.  Atui  he  tells  them  to  cast 
him  into  the  sea,  for  he  was  sure  that  the  storm  had  come  on  his  ac- 
count and  that  it  would  cease,  if  he  were  thrown  overboard  to  placate 
the  angry  deity.  The  men  follow  his  advice,  hut  not  before  vainly 
trying  once  more  to  reach  the  shore  and  addressing  a  passionate 
prayer  to  Yahweh  not  to  hold  them  guilty  of  murder,  since  He  Him- 
self hcui  so  plainly  indicated  His  will.  As  soon  as  Jonah  is  cast 
into  the  sea,  the  storm  ceases  and  the  sea  grows  calm.  Overawed  by 
Yahweh's  might,  atidfull  of  gratitude  for  His  deliverance,  the  sailors 
offer  sacrifices  and  make  vows  to  Yahweh. 

11.  Meanwhile  the  sea  was  becoming  more  and  more  angry. 
It  seemed  that  Yahweh  demanded  the  surrender  of  Jonah.  But 
since  the  sailors  did  not  know  Him,  they  could  not  be  sure.  They 
were  afraid  to  offend  Him.  Cf.  2  K.  17"".  So  they  ask  Jonah, 
What  shall  we  do  to  thee  that  the  sea  grow  calm  and  cease  from 
(raging)  against  us?  Perhaps  he  knew  how  to  allay  the  anger 
of  God.  The  clause  at  the  end,  for  the  sea  was  raging  more  and 
more,  may  be  a  part  of  the  narrative  or  a  part  of  the  words  of 


I--  39 

the  sailors.  In  v.  ^'  it  is  a  part  of  the  narrative  and  so  probably 
here  also. — 12.  Jonah  tells  them  to  throw  him  overboard,  for  I 
realise,  he  says,  that  it  is  for  my  sake  that  this  great  tempest  is  upon 
you.  He  had  not  gained  this  knowledge  by  the  decision  of  the 
lot,  but  by  the  voice  of  his  conscience.  And  he  knew  that  the 
storm  would  be  calmed  by  his  sacrifice,  for  then  the  reason  for 
the  storm  would  be  removed.  It  was  an  ancient  sailor's  custom 
to  quiet  the  stormy  sea  by  turning  the  guilty  person  adrift  or 
throwing  him  overboard  when  it  had  become  evident  that  the  god 
of  the  sea  demanded  it.  Cf.  the  story  of  Mittavindaka  given  above 
at  V.  ^ — 13.  But  the  sailors  hesitated  to  follow  Jonah's  advice. 
They  were  in  doubt  whether  Yahweh  would  be  pleased  with  it. 
They  did  not  know  what  Jonah  had  done,  and  could  not  be 
sure  that  all  that  Yahweh  wanted  might  not  simply  be  his  re- 
turn to  the  land.  So  they  tried  their  utmost  to  reach  the  shore. 
The  narrator  had  said  nothing  of  any  previous  attempt  on  their 
part  to  reach  the  shore  and  this  is  quite  in  line  with  what  we  know 
about  the  custom  of  sailors  during  storms  along  the  Palestinian 
coast.  Usually  they  prefer  to  seek  the  open  sea  rather  than  risk 
being  wrecked  upon  the  reefs  of  the  dangerous  coast  line.  But 
now  they  rowed  with  all  their  might  to  get  back  to  the  shore.  In 
vain!  When  they  saw  that  it  was  impossible  and  that  the  sea 
instead  of  becoming  calmer  began  to  rage  still  more,  they  per- 
ceived that  Yahweh's  will  was  in  accord  with  Jonah's  suggestion. 
— 14.  So  they  decided  to  throw  Jonah  overboard,  but  before  do- 
ing so,  they  cried  to  Yahweh  and  implored  Him  not  to  look  upon 
this  act  as  if  it  were  the  shedding  of  innocent  blood,  and  not  to 
hold  them  guilty  of  the  death  of  this  man.  Yahweh  might  side 
after  all  with  his  worshipper  and  avenge  his  death  upon  them. 
So  they  told  Yahweh  in  their  prayer  that  they  were  doing  nothing 
but  His  will,  for  He  had  sent  the  storm,  had  indicated  by  the  deci- 
sion of  the  lot  that  Jonah  was  the  guilty  cause  of  it,  and  He 
had  not  aided  them  in  their  attempt  to  get  back  to  the  coast 
in  order  to  put  Jonah  off  the  ship.  They  did  not  regard  Jonah  as 
innocent,  their  words  and  do  not  lay  upon  us  innocent  blood  expound 
the  words  do  not  let  us  perish  for  the  life  of  this  man.  They  merely 
express  that  the  sailors  did  not  commit  the  crime  of  wilful  murder. 


40  JONAH 

Yahweh  himself  had  pointed  him  out  as  guilty  and  Jonah  him- 
self had  acknowledged  that  he  was  the  cause  of  the  storm  and 
Yahweh  as  well  as  Jonah  had  demanded  that  they  throw  him 
into  the  sea.  Thou  Thyself,  O  Yahweh,  hast  caused  this  accord- 
ing to  Thy  will. — 15.  Directly  after  they  had  cast  Jonah  overboard, 
the  sea  grew  calm  and  ceased  from  its  fury.  The  term  used  here 
makes  the  sea  animate,  it  had  been  angry,  full  of  wrath,  now  it 
was  calm,  appeased. — 16.  The  sailors,  profoundly  impressed  by 
the  sudden  calm  and  overawed  by  this  manifestation  of  Yahweh 's 
T^ow  ex,  feared  Yahweh  with  a  great  fear.  At  once  they  offered  sac- 
rifices and  vowed  to  pay  their  homage  to  Him  after  reaching  their 
destination.  What  they  vowed  the  narrator  does  not  say.  He 
did  not  feel  the  difficulty  of  the  older  exegetes  whence  the  sailors 
took  the  sacrificial  animals.  He  does  not  say  that  they  were 
converted  and  became  henceforth  true  Yahweh-worshippers,  but 
rather  describes  a  scene  which  harmonises  with  ancient  religion 
and  its  recognition  of  the  existence  of  many  gods. 

11.  prr'i,  in  order  that  it  be  calm,  for  waw  conj.  with  impf.  in  a  final 
clause  after  an  interrogative  sentence  cf.  Ges.  ''  '"^.  ij'Spo  pregnant 
constr.,  cease  from  {raging)  against  us.  I'^n  in  combination  with  an- 
other vb.  denotes  progressive  action,  Ges.  ^  "3".  i;'bi  Tii;;in,  was  rag- 
ing more  and  more. — 12.  ■''^u'a  =  '•JjJn'^,  see  note  on  v.  ''.  Siev.  om. 
ar^'^j.T  mtr.  cs. — 13.  irn  means  lit.  dig,  here  dig  (oars)  into  the  water 
=  row,  Ul  rtp^'j'i,  B  remigabant.  (&  Trape^id^ovTo  made  efforts  (with 
the  oars).  Gr.  thinks  that  <8's  Heb.  text  was  perhaps  iprnPM,  Vol. 
nnriM,  but  more  likely  it  was  the  same  as  M.  a^cnV,  to  bring  back,  sc. 
the  ship.  Siev.  rearranges  the  order  by  reading  nB'3\TSN  aTn*?  ^Sa^  nSi 
on  account  of  the  rhythm. — 14.  n:N  from  hn  +  nj,  "a  strong  part,  of 
entreaty,  ah,  now/  I  (or  we)  beseech  titee I"  BDB.  31  beautifully  S^ap 
Nj'^ii'D,  accept  our  petition!  IB  quasumus.  tt'oja,  cf.  2  S.  14",  S  'i'P).  naina; 
for  N'pj  DT  01  ■>;!  DT  nam.  N'pj  is  written  here  with  n  as  in  Jo.  4". 
Siev.  om.  nin^  after  d.in  mtr.  cs.  iJ  transl.  Thou  art  Yahweh  and,  but 
this  is  wrong. — 15.  p  icv  like  the  German  abstehen  von,  cease,  cf.  Gn. 
29"  30'.  n>'r  is  used  only  here  of  the  raging  of  the  sea,  else  it  is  used  of 
strong  emotions. — 16.  Siev.  (Metrik)  regarded  both  nin>  ns  and  ni,T>S  as 
glosses,  but  Marti  insisted  rightly  that  the  characteristic  element  would 
then  be  taken  away.  Siev.  now  {M iscellen)  regards  only  one,  prefer- 
ably nin>  PN,  as  secondar)'.  <6^  om.  mri'^.  QI  nai  Nna-i"?  ntNi,  and 
they  promised  to  offer  sacrifices  (after  they  had  reached  the  shore). 


"   (ENGL.    I^'   2'-  '')  41 


JONAH'S  DELIVERANCE,   2*-  '•  "  (Engl,  i^^  2*-  '"). 

By  Yahweh^s  command  Jonah  was  at  once  swallowed  alive  by 
a  huge  fish  and  remained  in  its  stomach  three  days  and  three 
nights.  Then  he  prayed  to  Yahweh,  who  commanded  the  fish  to 
throw  him  up  on  the  shore. 

2^  (Engl.  i").  Then  Yahweh  ordered  a  great  fish  to  swallow  Jo- 
nah. The  translation  prepared  (AV.,  RV.)  is  misleading,  for  the 
fish  was  not  created  at  that  instant  but  ordered  by  Yahweh  to  do 
His  bidding  which  it  instantly  did.  Cf.  also  v.  ".  The  later 
Jews  believed  that  God  created  this  fish  on  the  day  of  creation  and 
held  it  in  readiness  for  Jonah.  The  Heb.  speaks  simply  of  a  great 
fish,  not  of  a  whale.  Commentators  have  thought  of  a  large  shark 
(squalns  carcharias),  Quandt  and  more  recently  P.  Haupt  of  a 
cachalot  or  sperm-whale.  But  the  author  did  not  specify  the  kind 
of  fish;  whether  he  was  not  interested  in  this  or  did  not  know 
enough  about  it,  we  cannot  tell.  He  had  probably  heard  stories 
of  huge  sea-monsters  which  had  swallowed  men  whole  and  alive. 
The  fish  has  no  other  purpose  in  the  story  than  to  swallow  Jonah 
and  thus  to  save  him  from  drowning  and  eventually  to  bring 
him  back  to  the  shore.  Haupt  believes  that  it  was  brought  into 
the  story  "in  order  to  transport  the  disobedient  prophet  as  speedily 
as  possible  from  Joppa,  the  seaport  of  Jerusalem,  to  Alexandretta, 
the  terminus  of  the  shortest  route  from  the  Mediterranean  to  Nin- 
eveh." But  our  author  does  not  say  where  Jonah  was  ejected,  cf. 
v.  ",  and  others  have  therefore  guessed  that  he  was  brought  back 
to  the  coast  of  Joppa.  The  three  days  and  three  nights  which  Jo- 
nah was  in  the  fish  must  not  be  cut  down  to  but  little  more  than 
twenty-four  hours  in  order  to  minimise  the  miraculous  element. 
For  this  is  of  little  avail,  even  if  it  were  possible  to  interpret  three 
days  and  three  nights  thus,  since  it  does  not  do  away  with  the  ex- 
traordinary miracle.  Nor  is  it  necessary,  since  the  story  is  not  a 
historical  account.  Of  course,  the  phrase  three  days  and  three 
nights  need  not  be  pressed  to  mean  exactly  seventy-two  hours.  To 
collect  stories,  as  has  often  been  done,  in  order  to  corroborate  the 
miracle  is  beside  the  mark,  eveij^  they  were  well  authenticated, 


42  JONAH 

and  even  if  it  could  be  proved  that  a  man  can  live  three  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  stomach  of  a  huge  fish  without  being  sutlocated. 
For  the  story  belongs  in  the  same  class  with  the  many  stories  of 
men  swallowed  and  saved  by  large  fishes  which  are  told  the  world 
over.  They  all  are  folk  tales.  Our  author  lets  Jonah  stay  in  the 
fish  three  days  and  three  nights  in  order  to  make  a  stronger  im- 
pression on  the  reader  as  well  as  on  the  prophet  who  is  to  be  taught 
obedience  by  it. — 2  (Engl.  v. ').  And  Jonah  prayed  to  Yaliwch  his 
God.  This  refers  now,  as  the  text  stands,  to  the  psalm  in  vv.  •''■"' 
(Engl.  vv.  "■").  But  this  psalm  is  interpolated,  see  pp.  22  /.,  and 
our  author  meant  here  not  the  psalm  but  a  prayer  for  deliver- 
ance, the  words  of  which  are  not  given.  V.  "  speaks  of  a  prayer 
which  was  prayed  in  tlie  stomach  of  the  fish,  not  after  the  deliver- 
ance from  the  fish,  while  the  psalm  is  not  a  prayer  for  deliverance 
but  a  thanksgiving  after  deliverance.  V.  "  is  sometimes  regarded 
as  the  introductory  part  of  the  interpolation.  Marti,  c.  g.,  thinks 
that  our  author  would  not  have  repeated  the  subject,  Jonah,  or  the 
place,  from  the  belly  of  the  fish,  from  v.  ^  But  it  is  easier  to  account 
for  the  insertion  of  the  psalm  if  v.  "  was  already  in  the  narrative. 
Besides,  the  repetition  in  the  light  of  ch.  i  becomes  even  significant. 
For  we  are  not  told  (though  it  is  usually  assumed)  that  Jonah 
prayed  to  Yahweh  his  God  after  the  captain  had  told  him  to  do  so. 
It  is  more  likely  that  he  did  not.  But  now  Jonah,  who  had  fled 
out  of  the  sight  of  his  God,  prayed  out  of  the  stomach  of  the  great 
fish  in  the  deep  sea  to  Yahweh  his  God!  The  terrible  experience 
had  made  him  pliable.  Then  followed  in  the  original  story  v.  ". 
— 11  (Engl.  V.  *").  And  Yahweh  heard  his  prayer  and  spake  unto 
the  fish.  The  words  of  the  command  are  not  given  but  implied  in 
the  following  as  so  often  in  Heb.  speech:  it  vomited  out  Jonah  upon 
the  dry  land.  Where,  we  are  not  told.  Somewhere  on  the  Pales- 
tinian coast,  we  may  suppose.  To  attempt  to  determine  the  place 
is  futile,  see  on  v.  *. 

1.  IBM,  <6  irpoffira^ev,  IJ  pr(Ecepit  is  a  favourite  word  of  our  author, 
cf.  4'-  '■  '.  It  means  to  number,  assign,  appoi>tt,  order,  in  the  latter 
meaning  only  in  late  books  {cf.  BDB.).  -';o  here  =  stomach.  IJ  omits 
three  days  and. — 2.  njin  the  fern,  is  used  only  here  of  a  single  fish,  else- 
where it  is  used  collectively.     Since  the  masc.  Jin  occurs  three  times  in 


2'-  *   (ENGL.    2'-  ^)  43 

this  ch.  (vv.  •■''•  ")  we  are  juslified  in  regarding  njin  as  a  scribal  error 
for  jn~  (so  also  Kue.).  Others  think  the  use  of  the  fem.  is  a  sign  of  late 
date.  The  grotesque  explanations  of  the  rabbis  may  be  found  in  the 
article  Jonah  in  JE.  The  quotation  in  Mt.  i2<<'  is  taken  literally  from  (&. 
11  (Engl.  V.  •»).  For  ncsM  (&  reads  vpofferdyr],  as  if  it  had  read  a 
form  of  njD,  cf.  ^'s  transl.  Trpoffira^ev  for  |DM  in  2'  4^-  '.  It  omitted 
nini.  perhaps  its  orig.  had  an  abbreviation  which  (5  overlooked.  & 
also  reads  ""pDi,  apparently  a  free  transl.     M  is  superior  to  (S  &. 

A  PRAYER   OF  THANKSGIVING,   2^"'   (Engl.   2='-»). 

'  / 

'  [2]  Out  of  my  anguish  I  called 

to  Yahweh  and  He  answered  me, 
Out  of  the  midst  of  Sheol  I  cried, 
Thou  heardest  my  voice. 

*  [']  Thou  didst  cast  me  into  the  heart  of  the  seas, 

and  the  floods  surrounded  me, 
All  Thy  breakers  and  billows 
passed  over  me. 
»  [■<]  And  I,  I  thought,  I  am  cast  out 
from  Thy  sight : 
7    How  shall  I  ever  again  look  "^'^  <^'L^ 

toward  Thy  holy  temple? 

«  p]  The  waters  encompassed  me  to  suffocation, 
the  deep  surrounded  me, 
Sea-weeds  were  wrapped  about  my  head 
'  [']       at  the  bottom  of  the  mountains. 

I  had  gone  down  to  the  land  whose  bars 

are  everlasting  bolts, 
But  Thou  broughtest  my  life  up  from  the  pit, 

0  Yahweh,  mj'  God. 

•  ['J  When  my  soul  fainted  within  me, 

1  remembered  Yahweh, 

And  my  prayer  came  unto  Thee 
into  Thy  holy  temple. 

'  [5]  Those  who  pay  regard  to  vain  idols 
forsake  their  (true)  refuge. 

>»  [3]  But  I  with  loud  thanksgiving 
will  sacrifice  to  Thee, 
What  I  have  vowed  I  will  perform, 
for  help  belongs  to  Yahweh. 

The  psalm  is  composed  of  pentameters,  so-called  kinah-Wnes.  Usu- 
ally two  together  are  regarded  as  forming  strophes  of  four  half-lines 
each.  The  only  exception  to  this  is  v.  '  where  we  have  a  single  kinah- 
line.     Reuss  and  INIarti  think  that  the  other  line  has  been  accidentally 


44  JONAH 

omitted.  The  latter  suggests  that  it  was  something  like  But  I  trust  in 
Thee,  O  Yahweh  my  Saviour  I  cf.  Ps.  31'.  Bohme  and  Du.  regard  v. ' 
as  interpolated.  Dr.  Briggs  regards  the  psalm  as  consisting  of  "two 
complete  strophes  [vv.  '-^  and  vv.  ^■^]  concluding  each  with  a  refrain 
and  .  .  .  half  a  strophe  [vv.  »  '"]  without  a  refrain."  If  the  phrase 
unto  Thy  holy  temple  in  vv.  '  '  is  indeed  a  refrain,  Dr.  Briggs'  arrange- 
ment is  undoubtedly  correct.  But  we  cannot  be  quite  sure  that  the 
author  intended  it  as  a  refrain,  though  occurring,  as  it  does,  twice  at  the 
end  of  six  lines  it  is  very  likely  that  he  did.  We  would  be  surer,  if  it 
occurred  again.  Dr.  Briggs  assumes  that  it  did  originally,  for  he  con- 
tinues, "This  shows  that  the  prayer  is  only  part  of  a  longer  piece  which 
must  have  been  complete  and  symmetrical  as  we  see  from  the  parts 
given  to  us."  The  metre  demands  that  the  first  two  words  of  v.  '  {to 
the  ends  of  the  mountains)  be  taken  with  v. '  as  the  second  part  of  the 
kinah-Wnc.  This  necessitates  a  slight  change  in  the  preposition.  Kau. 
and  Siev.  retain  the  masoretic  division  of  v.  ^  and  believe  that  the  second 
part  of  the  second  kinah-Wnc  in  v.  «  is  missing.  But  this  spoils  the 
kinah  rhythm  in  v. '  also. — On  the  authenticity  of  the  psalm,  see  pp.  2ijf. 

3  (Engl.  V.  ^).  In  the  first  two  lines  the  theme  of  the  psalm  is 
stated.  In  mortal  anguish  the  author  had  called  on  Yahweh  and 
He  had  heard  his  cry.  He  had  been  so  near  death  when  he  cried 
to  Yahweh  that  he  seemed  to  be  (as  he  says  hyperbolically)  in 
the  midst  of  Sheol.  But  now  the  danger  is  past,  as  the  tenses 
clearly  show,  cf.  v.  ^.  The  mortal  peril  is  not  specified,  but 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  one  who  inserted  the  psalm  inter- 
preted the  distress  in  accordance  with  the  story.  The  original 
author  may  have  used  these  expressions  figuratively  of  mortal  ill- 
ness, as,  e.  g.,  the  author  of  Ps.  69  had  done.  But  here  in  Jonah 
the  description  of  drowning  is  consistent  all  through,  not  as  in  Ps. 
69,  where  the  phrases  are  figurative  and  soon  abandoned  for  other 
terms  descriptive  of  the  distress  of  the  singer.  Sheol,  the  nether 
world,  is  personified  here  as  a  monster  with  a  belly,  in  Is.  5"  its 
large  mouth  is  spoken  of.  The  phrase  out  of  the  belly  of  Sheol  I 
called  seemed  to  the  inserter  to  refer  to  the  belly  of  the  fish,  but 
it  has  in  reality  nothing  to  do  with  it.  V. '  is  similar  to  Ps.  18^ 
30'  i2oV  For  the  same  hyperbolic  expression  of  threatened  death 
cf.  Ps.  18"  30*.— 4  (Engl.  v.').  The  third  line  begins  the  de- 
scription of  the  psalmist's  distress.  It  is  grammatically  closely 
connected  with  the  preceding,  and  Thou  didst  cast  me.    We  should 


2^-^  (eNGL.    2*-")  45 

expect  {for)  Thou  didst  cast  me,  and  we  may  translate  thus,  for 
it  explains  how  the  psalmist  got  into  the  belly  of  Sheol.  As  so  often, 
Yahweh  is  regarded  as  the  author  of  the  calamity,  and  secondary 
causes  are  not  mentioned.  The  metre  which  is  quite  regular  in 
this  psalm  demands  the  omission  of  one  word  in  the  first  line,  and 
most  probably  the  deep  (cf.  Mi.  7^^  Ps.  68^)  should  be  omitted, 
for  it  is  synonymous  with  the  heart  of  the  seas.  Cf.  Ez.  27^-  ^.  The 
streams  (for  pi.  v.  i.)  which  surround  him  are  the  floods  and  cur- 
rents of  the  sea,  cf.  Ps.  24-,  where  the  floods  are  parallel  to  the  seas. 
All  Thy  breakers  and  Thy  billows  passed  over  me  seems  to  have 
been  taken  from  Ps.  42*.  There  the  terms  are  used  figuratively. 
— 5  (Engl.  V.  *).  In  despair  I  thought  (lit.  /  said),  I  am  driven 
out  of  the  sight  of  Thine  eyes,  i.  e.,  out  of  the  land  of  the  living, 
where  Yahweh  rules  and  sees  everything.  Cf.  Is.  38",  I  said,  I 
shall  not  see  Yahweh  in  the  land  of  the  living,  nor  shall  I  see  men 
any  more  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  world.  Ace.  to  the  old  idea 
Yahweh  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  nether  world,  He  was  a  God 
of  the  living  and  not  of  the  dead.  This  conception  persisted  even 
after  others  had  been  introduced.  The  inserter  of  the  psalm  may 
well  have  seen  here  a  point  of  connection  with  i'.  There  Jonah 
fled  away  from  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  here  he  realises  that  he 
has  been  banished  from  Him,  out  of  His  sight.  In  the  continua- 
tion M  introduces  an  element  of  hope.  Surely  I  shall  yet  again  look 
upon  Thy  holy  temple,  but  this  is  so  manifestly  premature  and  so 
out  of  keeping  with  the  context  that  the  reading  of  ©,  which  in- 
volves the  change  of  a  single  vowel,  must  be  followed,  How  shall  I 
ever  again  look  upon  Thy  holy  temple?  A  question  of  despair,  it 
is  impossible!  Cf.  Gn.  39®  Ps.  137*.  To  the  Hebrew  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem  was  the  seat  where  Yahweh  dwelt.  Surprising  as 
the  reference  to  it  here  may  seem  to  us  who  would  have  thought 
rather  of  the  light  of  heaven  in  such  a  connection  and  therefore 
of  the  heavenly  temple  in  which  Yahweh  dwelt,  to  the  devout  Jew 
this  was  natural.  For  he  thought  of  Yahweh  as  living  among  His 
people,  toward  the  temple  he  looked  when  he  prayed  and  into 
the  temple  the  prayer  would  come  to  Yahweh  who  heard  it,  cf. 
v.  ^.  Thither  he  would  go  to  worship,  sacrifice,  render  thanks 
and  enter  into  communion  with  his  God,  cf.  v.  ^°.     The  psalm- 


46  JONAH 

ist  feels  that  this  will  henceforth  be  impossible  for  him,  for  he  is 
doomed  to  death.  V.  ^^  is  almost  exactly  like  Ps.  3 1^. — 6  (Engl. 
V.  *).  The  Heb.  idiom,  The  waters  closed  in  upon  me,  cf.  Ps.  i8^ 
unto  the  soul,  means  either  until  I  could  not  breathe,  to  suffocation, 
or  unto  (my)  life,  German:  gingen  mir  ans  Leben,  cf.  Ps.  69"  (figu- 
ratively), threatened  my  life.  He  had  sunk  deep  down  to  the  ends 
or  roots  of  the  mountains,  down  to  the  foundations  of  the  earth ; 
in  Ecclus.  16^"  both  the  roots  of  the  mountains  and  the  foundations 
of  the  earth  are  mentioned  together.  The  Hebrews  believed  that 
the  earth  was  founded  upon  the  subterranean  ocean,  Ps.  24^,  and 
that  the  ends  of  the  mountains,  the  pillars  of  the  earth,  went  deep 
down  to  its  foundations,  cf  Ps.  18^®.  Down  there  sea-weeds 
were  wound  around  the  psalmist's  head,  a  gruesome  turban,  with 
which  he  was  about  to  enter  the  land  from  which  no  wanderer  re- 
turns.— 7  (Engl.  V.  ^).  The  first  two  words  of  v. ''  go  with  v.* 
(v.  s.).  The  singer  had  sunk  down  lower  and  lower  and  had  ar- 
rived at  the  gates  of  the  land  whose  gate-bars  are  eternal  bolts,  which 
are  never  opened  again  after  the  wanderer  has  once  been  admitted. 
It  is  the  gate  of  the  land  of  the  dead  through  which  the  dead  soul 
enters:  Sheol,  which  lay,  as  the  ancient  Hebrews  believed,  below 
the  subterranean  ocean.  Here  the  drowning  man  had  arrived,  at 
the  gates  of  death,  when  Yahweh  suddenly  saved  him.  The  Baby- 
lonian ideas  of  the  nether  world  were  so  similar  that  it  is  possible 
to  fill  out  the  fragmentary  notices  of  the  OT.  by  Babylonian  paral- 
lels, cf.  Zimmern,  KAT?,  pp.  637,  642,  Friedr.  Delitzsch,  Das 
Land  ohne  Heimkehr  (191 1).  Sheol  is  protected  by  walls  and 
gates,  which  are  also  mentioned  in  Is.  38'"  Ps.  9"  Jb.  38*^  Ps.  Sol. 
16-  Wisd.  16"  Mt.  16**;  its  gate-bars  are  mentioned  in  Jb.  17", 
but  the  text  there  is  not  certain.  Usually  the  thought  seems  to  be 
of  a  fortified  city,  here  it  is  of  a  land,  cf.  Ex.  15'",  also  in  Baby- 
Ionian  it  is  irsitum,  land,  cf  Dl.,  /.  c,  p.  37.  The  text  adopted 
above  differs  from  M  only  in  the  omission  of  one  consonant.  M 
reads  the  land  whose  bars  [were  closed]  behitid  me  forever.  The 
words  in  brackets  are  not  in  the  original.  The  pit  from  which 
Yahweh  brought  up  the  psalmist  is  Sheol.  With  v.  ''^  cf.  Ps.  30*, 
also  I  S.  2®  and  the  prayer  of  Asurbanipal  (K.  2487),  where  Ninib 
is  praised  as  the  one  who  brings  back  the  body  of  the  one  that  had 


2'-'"  (ENGL.    2^-')  47 

been  brought  into  the  nether  world  (DL,  /.  c,  p.  40).  We  should 
have  expected  a  reference  to  the  fish  at  this  point,  if  the  psalm  had 
been  written  by  the  author  of  the  story  of  Jonah  for  this  particular 
place. — 8  (Engl.  v.  ^).  When  my  soul  was  fainting  within  me,  I 
remembered  Yahweh,  cf.  Ps.  142''  143*  where  the  same  phrase  is 
used  (except  my  spirit  for  my  soul,  some  mss.  have  this  also  here) . 
And  my  prayer  came  to  Thee  into  Thy  holy  temple,  cj.  Ps.  5*  18^ 
88^.  The  inserter  of  the  psalm  interpreted  this,  of  course,  as  the 
prayer  for  help  which  Jonah  uttered  in  the  belly  of  the  fish,  ac- 
cording to  V.  ^  (Engl.  V.  ^).  Yahweh's  holy  temple  is  here  also  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem.  This  is  an  interesting  verse  for  the  belief  in 
the  necessity  and  efficacy  of  prayer.  The  author  evidently  be- 
lieves that  Yahweh  would  not  have  interposed,  if  Jonah  had  not 
prayed,  cf.  also  i^.  And  his  conviction  of  the  readiness  and 
ability  of  Yahweh  to  help  those  who  pray  to  Him  leads  him  to 
utter  the  following  remark  about  idolators,  which  seems  at  first  so 
out  of  keeping  with  the  whole  tenor  of  the  psalm,  that  one  might  be 
inclined  to  regard  it  as  an  interpolation,  as  Bohme  and  Duhm  do. 
— 9  (Engl.  v.  ^).  It  is  folly  to  ally  oneself  with  idols,  for  they  are 
vain  and  cannot  help,  and  by  doing  so  one  forsakes  the  only  true 
source  of  help,  Yahweh,  who  will  not  help  then.  For  He  hears 
only  those  who  pray  to  Him.  If  original,  the  writer  used  the  phrase 
they  forsake  their  loving-kindness  in  the  same  way  in  which  Ps. 
144^  speaks  of  Yahweh  as  My  loving-kittdness,  i.  e.,  they  forsake 
their  only  true  love,  their  grace,  their  gracious  God,  who  alone  can 
save  them.  But  it  is  probable  that  the  original  read,  they  forsake 
their  refuge  (Marti).  Cf.  Ps.  31^  for  the  phrase  they  who  pay  re- 
gard to  vain  idols.  This  strophe  is  shorter  than  the  others  and  is 
regarded  as  incomplete  by  Reuss  and  Briggs,  and  is  filled  out  by 
Marti.  It  is  a  question  whether  our  poet  wrote  strophes  of  four 
half-lines  throughout  or  (with  Dr.  Briggs)  strophes  of  six  lines 
each  concluding  with  a  refrain.  Nothing  is  missing  in  the  thought, 
either  between  v.  ^  and  v.  *  or  between  v.  ®  and  v.  ^^. — 10  (Engl. 
V.  ^).  In  contrast  to  these  idolators  our  singer  to  whom  Yahweh 
is  his  Love  or  Refuge  declares  fervently,  that  he  will  cling  to  Yah- 
weh. With  loud  songs  of  thanksgiving  will  he  sacrifice  to  Him. 
He  means  evidently  material  sacrifices  (cf.  Heb.  word  slaughter  = 


48  JONAH 

sacrifice),  for  he  mentions  also  his  willingness  to  pay  the  vows  which 
he  had  made  in  the  hour  of  his  desperate  need  and  which,  accord- 
ing to  ancient  belief,  were  efiicacious  in  eliciting  God's  aid,  cf. 
i"\  There  were  many  different  kind  of  vows,  vows  of  a  material 
and  of  a  spiritual  nature.  Which  were  prominent  in  this  psalmist's 
case  we  do  not  know.  One  might  ask  whether  the  inserter  of  the 
psalm  interpreted  this  as  referring  to  a  vow  of  strict  and  unquali- 
fied obedience  which  Jonah  made  in  the  fish.  But  we  cannot  tell, 
since  he  says  nothing  about  it.  The  whole  psalm  culminates  in 
the  shout  of  joy  and  gratitude  that  help  belongs  to  Yahwch  and  to 
no  one  else,  cj.  Ps.  3°  (Engl.  3^).  He  alone  can  give  it,  as  the 
psalmist  himself  had  experienced  to  his  great  joy.  CJ.  v.  *°  with 
Ps.  42'  50"-  ■'. 

3.  (S  5j  add  rbv  6e6v  (lov  after  r^v\'',  this  is  probably  due  to  v.  '. — 
\7"vj'  (§  Kpavy^s  fiov  =  V7>^i.w',  M  is  correct.  Du.  omits  '^ip  in  his 
transl.  ■'S  n-\sc  cf.  Ps.  18^  120'.  Du.  omits  '''7. — 4.  Evidently  something 
new  begins  here,  but  the  gram,  constr.  of  ^:3'''?'i'.ii  connects  it  with  the 
preceding.  We  should  expect  pf.  without  waw  consec.  So  We.,  fol- 
lowed by  Now.,  thinks  that  something  has  dropped  out.  Since  the  metre 
demands  the  omission  of  one  word  in  v.  '",  Schmidt  om.  'J3'''?s'ni,  but 
this  cannot  be  missed,  Marti,  Now."^,  Kau.,  Hpt.  omit  nSixa  which 
should,  if  orig.,  be  nSissa,  while  Siev.,  Now.^,  Gunk,  omit  D^S'  aaSa 
as  an  explanatory  gloss.  The  second  is  the  most  probable.  Du.  re- 
tains both  synonyms  but  regards  v.  ^i"  as  a  quotation  and  gloss.  For 
the  phrase  3^2^  aa':'^  cf.  Ez.  27^-  ".  Hpt.,  Du.  read  annj  (pi.)  with  (6 
?C,  and  this  is  most  probably  right,  cf.  Ps.  24^;  the  vb.  ■'jaao''  must  then, 
of  course,  also  be  pointed  as  pi. — 5.  ^nrnjj,  in  the  parall.  Ps.  31''  'Prnjj, 
/  am  ct4  off.  Gr.,  Bohme  read  this  here  also.  But  others  change 
Ps.  31"  to  ^HB'njj,  e.  g.,  Du.,  Briggs.  For  in  read  with  0  "|n  =  -^^n,  Stei., 
Wc.,  Now.,  Marti.     Note  the  mistake  in  (6'*  \aov  for  vaov. 

6.  Hpt.  om.  V.  5="  as  a  gloss  and  transposes  v.  ^''  after  v.  ^•.  cdj  ij? 
Ul  NHin  i>'.  (5  &  ?I  read  n'"'  for  ItD.  JU  and  Aq.  thought  of  the  Red 
Sea:  21  '\10'\  nc,  .\q.  ipvdpa.  Du.'s  correction  'J??3D,  pf.  for  impf.,  is 
unnecessary',  cf.  Ges.  5 1"?  i  and  also  the  same  use  of  ^jaao''  in  v.  *. 

7.  D''-in  'sap'^  to  the  extremities  of  tite  mountains.  JH  xprj  ^li'^sS  Gr., 
Bohme,  Now.,  Marti  (?)  read  '2f"2'i'.  since  asp  is  not  elsewhere  used  in 
the  sense  of  extremity  in  the  OT.  But  the  occurrence  of  the  phrase 
onn  'asp  in  Ecclus.  16",  where  it  is  parall.  to  San  niDM,  proves  its 
correctness  here  also,  cf.  BDB.  It  obviates  Now.i^'s  suggestion  to  read 
V-isn  for  s-'-^n,  or  that  of  Ehr.,  Hpt.  o-n  or  that  of  Du.  onnj  nxpS. — 


2'-3'  49 

Van  H.'s  conjecture  of  3'tn  Hades  is  highly  improbable,  n^nna  inxn 
oSiyS  nya  does  not  seem  quite  in  order.  The  ancient  and  modern  Vrss., 
except  <8  5j,  supply  a  vb.,  the  earth  with  its  bars  closed  upon  me  for- 
ever. But  even  then  the  difficulty  is  not  altogether  removed,  because 
the  statement  is  not  true  to  the  facts.  The  bars  had  not  closed  upon 
the  psalmist  forever.  Of  course,  we  might  explain  that  this  is  hyper- 
bolic and  that  he  only  thought  so.  But  this  does  not  seem  right.  Van  H. 
seems  to  me  to  have  suggested  the  right  solution  at  this  point  by  follow- 
ing (&  ets  ^riv  7\s  ol  fxox^oi  avTTJs  Kdroxoi  aiiI>i'ioi,  |C  cuius  vectes  sunt 
continentes  ceternce.  He  reads  'i?  for  ''i>3  and  translates,  the  land 
whose  {gate)  bars  are  everlasting  bolts.  For  the  cstr.  st.  before  a  prep. 
cf  Ges.  ^  ""».  This  fits  in  with  the  context,  for  inxn  is  the  nether  world, 
cf.  Ex.  15'*,  Ecclus.  51',  Bab.  irsitum,  and  is  preferable  to  Marti's  ingen- 
ious reconstruction  s'-^^y  nx."*^?*  m>nnn  Y"}.^^  ^f?"?"!^,  I  h'ld  gone  down  into 
the  lowest  part  of  the  earth,  to  the  dead  people  of  antiquity,  and  also  to  the 
emendations  of  Now.,  Siev.,  Hpt.,  Du.  or  Ries.  Hpt.  omits  v.  '''.  The 
metr.  division  differs  from  M,,  D'nn  'axpS  goes  with  the  preceding  str., 
\-n-|i  with  the  foil.  'nsn.  21  0^  S>  H  connect  nnr,  pit,  with  nnr,  destruc- 
tion, corruption. 

8.  Some  mss.  read  "inn  for  'U'flj.  05 HI!  point  siarn  with  waw  conj. 
— 9.  Instead  of  the  prtc.  Pi.  onsi:*n  which  is  found  only  here  many 
read  with  the  parall.  Ps.  31^  anacn.  In  Dt.  3221  avff  >San  is  parall.  to 
Sx-{<S.  The  use  of  aion  in  this  verse  is  unusual  and  paralleled  only 
by  Ps.  144^.  It  is  variously  translated  by  their  mercy,  their  fortune 
(Hi.,  Gunk.),  their  best  (We.),  their  providence  (van  H.),  their  piety  (Du.). 
If  orig.,  it  is  best  to  interpret  it,  as  in  Ps.  144^  as  meaning  the  author 
of  their  true  good,  they  forsake  their  own  true  grace.  But  it  seems  pref- 
erable to  emend  the  text  shghtly  with  Marti,  Now.*^  a^Pn?  their  refuge. 
SI  already  felt  a  difficulty  here  and  so  paraphrased  \y7h^  atairiNT  ipxa 
V^.y,  PJy  ^^h>  similarly  Ehr.,  wenn  jemand  zu  nichtigen  Gotzen  sich  ver- 
sieht,  halten  diese  mil  ihrer  Gnade  zuriick.  But  the  constr.  does  not 
favour  this.  &  evades  the  difficulty  by  reading  lion. — 10  (Engl.  v.  s). 
Now."^  suggests  Srif^a  for  ^^P'^.  Gr.,  Che.  read  n-\:;rN  for  nnarx.  But 
this  meaning  can  be  gotten  without  emendation,  cf.  We.'s  translation, 
but  I  will  sacrifice  to  Thee  songs  of  praise.  For  nnin  (&  51  have  a 
double  transl.  which  does  not  presuppose  a  different  orig.  On  the 
poetic  ending  in  nrinri.  see  Ges.  ^^osr  and  cf.  Ps.  3^  So''.  There  is  dif- 
ference of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  last  line.  M.  does  not  connect  oSu'n 
with  niH'':',  the  Vrss.  as  a  rule  do.  But  M  is  in  line  with  v.  *  '  and  pref- 
erable, cf.  also  Ps.  39.  Yahweh  alone  is  the  true  helper  in  time  of 
need,  for  He  alone  has  the  power  to  help.  The  psalmist  has  experi- 
enced this  and  ends  therefore  his  prayer  with  this  jubilant  expression  of 
assured  conviction. 


50  JONAH 


YAHWEH'S  RENEWED   COMMAND  AND  JONAH'S 
PREACHING   IN  NINEVEH   (3'-^). 

Jonah  promptly  obeyed  the  renewed  command,  went  to  Nineveh 
and  delivered  Yahweh's  message  that  Nineveh  would  be  destroyed 
in  three  days. 

1.  Cf.  i^  There  is  no  reproach  of  the  prophet's  former  dis- 
obedience but  simply  the  quiet  reiteration  of  the  command  which 
brings  out  most  beautifully  Yahweh's  gracious  kindness.  It  had 
sometimes  been  thought  that  Jonah  went  first  to  Jerusalem  after 
his  deliverance  to  perform  his  vows  in  the  temple,  but  our  author 
says  nothing  about  this  and  we  cannot  assume  that  "it  goes  with- 
out saying"  (Halevy);  on  the  contrary,  the  impression  his  story 
makes  is  that  the  command  came  to  Jonah  immediately  after  his 
deliverance  and  that  it  was  promptly  obeyed. — 2.  The  content  of 
the  command  is  the  same  as  before,  cf.  i^.  But  again  it  is  not 
specified,  proclaim  unto  her  the  message  which  I  am  about  to  speak 
to  thee.  That  it  would  be  the  same  message  as  before  goes  without 
saying.  And  that  Jonah  knew  what  it  was  is  clear  from  v.  ^. — 3. 
This  time  Jonah  obeys  without  delay.  His  refractory  spirit  had 
been  subdued  by  his  terrible  experience.  The  author  says  noth- 
ing about  Jonah's  thoughts  and  feelings  with  which  he  set  out  to 
do  his  duty.  And  we  need  not  speculate  on  them  either.  He  knew 
that  the  duty  could  not  be  evaded.  N'ow  Nineveh,  the  writer  ex- 
plains, was  an  enormously  large  city,  lit.  a  city  great  {even)  for  God, 
who  has  a  different  measure  of  greatness.  It  required  a  three 
days'  journey  to  travel  through  it.  At  first  it  seems  as  if  the  cir- 
cumference of  the  city  were  meant,  so  that  it  would  take  three  days 
to  travel  around  it.  This  would  agree  with  the  statement  of  Dio- 
dorus  (2^)  based  on  Ktesias  that  Nineveh's  circumference  was  480 
stadia,  which  would  be  equivalent  to  a  three  days'  journey,  for 
Herodotus  (5^)  estimates  150  stadia  for  a  day's  march  and  the 
present-day  estimate  of  about  20  to  25  miles  for  it  agrees  with  this. 
But  that  our  author  meant  the  diameter  of  the  city  is  clear  from 
V.  *  which  implies  that  one  day's  march  was  only  the  beginning  of 
Jonah's  journey.     When  he  wrote  the  city  belonged  to  the  dis- 


3'- '  51 

tant  past,  as  the  Heb.  verb  shows,  and  it  appeared  much  larger  to 
him  than  it  actually  had  been.  Such  exaggerations  are  character- 
istic of  stories  like  this. 

Diodorus  (2^)  writes  about  Nineveh  "it  was  well-walled,  of  unequal 
lengths.  Each  of  the  longer  sides  was  150  stadia;  each  of  the  shorter 
90.  The  whole  circuit  then  being  480  stadia  the  hope  of  the  founder 
was  not  disappointed.  For  no  one  afterward  built  a  city  of  such  com- 
pass, and  with  walls  so  magnificent." 

F.  Jones  who  surveyed  the  ruins  of  Nineveh  gives  the  following 
measurements:  "In  more  general  language  the  enceinte  of  Nineveh  may 
be  said  to  form  an  irregular  triangle,  having  its  apex  abruptly  cut  off 
to  the  south.  The  sides  of  this  figure  have  a  length  respectively  in  the 
order  described  as  follows: 

The  East  Wall 16,000 

The  North  Wall 7,000 

The  West  Wall,  including  space  occupied  by  the  great 

mounds  of  Koiyunjik  and  Nebbi  Yunus    ....  13,600 

The  South  Wall 3,°°° 

Alaking  a  total  circuit  of 39,600 

or  13,200  yards,  equal  to  seven  miles  four  furlongs  of  English  statute 
measure;  Just  one-eighth  of  the  dimensions  assigned  to  the  city  by  Dio- 
dorus Siculus." — Topography  of  Nineveh,  JRAS.,  XV  (1855),  p.  324. 

These  measurements  of  Jones  tally  with  the  authentic  records  of  Sen- 
nacherib, who  fortified  Nineveh  and  made  it  his  capital.  In  an  inscrip- 
tion, recently  acquired  by  the  British  Museum,  No.  103,000,  and  pub- 
lished by  L.  W.  King  in  Cuneiform  Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets,  .  .  . 
in  the  British  Museum,  Part  XXVI,  1909,  Sennacherib  describes  Nine- 
veh's improvements  made  by  him,  its  system  of  fortification  and  its  fif- 
teen gates  whose  names  are  given;  and  in  the  course  of  the  description  he 
supplies  valuable  information  concerning  the  measurements  of  the  walls. 
Col.  VII:  s^Nineveh,  the  area  of  whose  circuit  in  former  days  ^'had  been 
nine  thousand  three  hundred  cubits,  ^''and  for  which  the  princes  who 
went  before  me  had  not  built  ^'an  inner  and  an  outer  wall, — ^^t^giye 
thousand  five  hundred  and  fifteen  cubits,  from  the  unoccupied  land  of 
the  city's  enclosure,  "I  added  to  the  former  measurement,  "and  twenty- 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  fifteen  great  suklum  I  made  its  ex- 
tent (?)*  Col.  VIII:  '^I  enlarged  the  area  of  Nineveh,  my  lordly  city, 
'^its  open  spaces  I  broadened,  and  I  made  it  bright  like  the  day,  '^I  con- 
structed an  outer  wall  and  made  it  high  like  a  mountain." 

Nothing  could  more  effectively  demolish  the  various  theories  which 

*  "  The  word  clearly  refers  to  the  circumference  of  the  walls." 


52  JONAH 

attempt  to  prove  the  author's  exactness  in  his  estimate  of  Nineveh's 
size.  The  most  interesting  one  of  them  suggests  that  the  author  meant 
Greater  Nineveh,  i.  e.,  the  whole  complex  of  cities  between  the  Tigris 
and  the  Zab  including  Kalah  and  Khorsabad  (Schrader,  KA  T.-,  pp.  99/.). 
But  that  this  complex  of  cities  was  ever  one  large  whole  is  contradicted 
by  the  inscriptions  and  the  survey  of  the  ruins  {cf.  also  Wkl.,  KA  T.\  p.  75, 
n.  4,  Johns,  EB.,  Ill,  col.  3420).  The  glossator  of  Gn.  10",  however, 
explained  the  great  city  as  consisting  of  the  tetrapolis,  Nineveh,  Reho- 
both-Ir,  Kalah  and  Resen.  And  Ktesias  and  Diodorus  seem  to  have 
had  some  similar  notion,  for  the  entire  circuit  of  the  four  seats  of  the 
Nineveh  district  is  6x4  miles  (Jones,  /.  c,  p.  303).  If  our  author  shared 
this  view  of  the  greater  Nineveh,  it  would  merely  show  that  he  lived  long 
after  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  at  a  time  when  its  greatness  was  greatly  exag- 
gerated. It  does  not  prove  his  historical  accuracy.  The  text  indeed 
shows  that  he  exaggerated  even  more  than  Ktesias. 

4.  And  Jonah  began  his  journey  into  the  city  and  after  he  had 
made  a  day^s  journey  he  began  to  preach.  The  narrator  places 
him  in  the  heart  of  the  city  before  he  begins  his  proclamation. 
The  explanation  that  Jonah  began  to  preach  at  once  and  that  he 
preached  all  the  way  that  first  day  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
words  of  the  text.  The  Heb.  would  have  expressed  this  differ- 
ently. The  substance  of  the  message  was,  Yet  forty  days,  and 
Nineveh  shall  be  overthrown/  The  same  word  is  used  of  the  over- 
throw of  Sodom,  cf.  Gn.  19-'-  -'  Dt.  29-'*  Am.  4"  Je.  20''  La.  4', 
it  expresses  the  completeness  of  the  destruction  not  its  manner. 
No  reason  for  the  destruction  is  given,  though  it  is  suggested  in  i", 
nor  are  any  particulars  furnished  about  the  agents  of  the  destruc- 
tion. Nothing  but  the  bare  statement  of  the  coming  disaster,  with- 
out any  call  to  repentance!  And  yet  the  author  knew  that  his 
hearers  would  understand  that  Yahweh  was  giving  this  warning  to 
the  Ninevites  in  the  hope  that  they  might  repent  and  thus  avert 
the  certain  doom.  For  this  was  always  implied  and  understood, 
by  Jonah  himself  also,  as  ch.  4"  shows,  (g  has  only  three  days  in- 
stead of  forty,  and  this  is  in  all  likelihood  the  original  reading,  for 
the  story  moves  rapidly  and  three  days  are  much  more  in  accord 
with  it.  After  Jonah  had  traversed  the  city  from  west  to  east  he 
could  expect  the  judgment.  So  he  sat  down  and  waited,  but  not 
forty  days!  See  further  on  4''.  What  language  Jonah  spoke,  the 
narrator  does  not  say.     How  the  people  could  understand  him, 


3'"'  53 

unless  he  spoke  Assyrian,  has  sometimes  troubled  the  commenta- 
tors. It  has  been  suggested  that  the  author  probably  meant  that 
Jonah  spoke  Aramaic,  which  was  the  diplomatic  language  in  the 
Persian  period.  But  is  it  likely  that  the  people  of  Nineveh  under- 
stood Aramaic?  To  our  author  the  language  made  as  httle  diffi- 
culty as  the  similar  question  in  what  language  Yahweh  spoke  to 
Adam  made  to  the  Yahwist.  It  simply  did  not  occur  to  him. 
This  is  another  sign  of  the  folk-tale  character  of  the  story. 

2.  nsn,''  sermon,  message,  prophecy,  only  here  in  the  OT.  (S  /card 
rb  K-^pvyfj.a  rb  efiirpoffOev  $  iyu  iXdXrjcra,  iG  secundum  prcBdicationem 
priorem  quam  ego  palam  locutus  sum  ad  te,  i.  e.,  ''21H  i-'n  nji:;'Nnn  nxnpj 
^mai.  Bu.  is  alone  in  thinking  that  this  is  "probably  correct"  "since 
only  absolute  obedience  to  the  first  command  would  agree  with  tlie  con- 
text." But  M  does  not  imply  that  the  command  would  be  different 
from  the  first.  "\ai  prtc.  of  imminent  fut.  Siev.  om.  n^':'^  mtr.  cs.,  and 
reads  ^at  for  'djn. — 3.  On  Nineveh  cf.  also  Hpt.,  JBL.,  XXVI  (1907), 
pp.  4  ff.  d^hSn'?  n'?nj,  great  (even)  for  God,  i.  e.,  extraordinarily  great. 
Kau.,  unmenschlich  gross,  cf.  Gn.  10'  where  ■'jflS  is  used  for  S,  with  the 
same  meaning.  The  pf.  nn^n  shows  that  Nineveh  is  a  thing  of  the  past 
to  the  narrator.  Siev.  inserts  num  after  i'^m  mtr.  cs.  Hpt.,  I.  c,  p.  16, 
regards  a^D'  nc'''S'  iSnn  as  a  gloss  (without  giving  his  reason  for  it).  Ries. 
regards  v.  ">  as  a  gloss.  He  thinks  that  the  glossator  deduced  the  great- 
ness of  the  city  from  the  three  days  of  grace  and  from  the  fact  that 
Jonah  made  one  day's  journey  on  the  first  day. — 4.  a'';;3is,  05  Tpers,  21 
triduum.  The  latter  is  rightly  accepted  by  Kohler,  Du.,  Ries.  (v.  s.). 
M  changed  three  to  forty,  because  forty  would  go  better  with  the  period 
of  fasting  (cf.  Kohler,  Ries.).  najjnj  prtc.  of  imminent  fut.  Siev.  om. 
i^j?3  mtr.  cs. 

THE  RESULT    OF   JONAH'S   PREACHING   (3^-1°). 

The  Ninevites  repent,  Yahweh  relents  and  spares  Nmeveh. 

5.  The  Ninevites  believed  that  God  would  carry  out  His  threat. 
So  they  all  repented  immediately,  proclaimed  a  fast  and  clothed 
themselves  in  sackcloth,  all  of  them  without  exception,  earnestly 
hoping  that  God  would  see  their  self-abasement  and  penitence, 
take  pity  on  them,  pardon  their  sins  and  avert  the  disaster.  Cf. 
Jo.  i'^  ^-  2'^*-,  Fasting  and  putting  on  of  sackcloth  are  the  out- 
ward signs  of  the  sincere  and  whole-hearted  penitence  of  the  Nine- 
vites, cf.  v.  ^'*.     It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  author  uses  the 


54  JONAH 

term  God  here  and  not  Yaliweli.  It  was  the  divine  message  that 
they  believed.  Yahvveh  they  did  not  know.  So  the  author  uses 
"God"  and  not  the  proper  name  Yahweh  also  in  the  following 
verses.  The  quick  effect  of  Jonah's  preaching  is  most  wonderful, 
even  if  we  take  into  account  the  emotional  nature  of  the  orientals. 
It  stands  in  striking  contrast  to  the  unbelief  and  indiflference  with 
which  Israel  treated  the  prophetic  announcements.  And  it  is  this 
point  that  is  of  most  value  to  our  author  who  wants  to  throw  the 
repentance  of  Nineveh  into  sharp  relief.  So  he  works  it  out  in 
some  detail,  evidently  desirous  of  bringing  out  the  universal  char- 
acter as  well  as  the  sincerity  of  Nineveh's  repentance. — 6.  The 
report  of  the  strange  prophet  and  of  his  awe-inspiring  message 
comes  even  into  the  royal  palace  before  the  king  himself,  who  in 
true  folk-lore  fashion  is  pictured  as  sitting  on  his  throne,  clad  in 
his  splendid  robes.  The  author  gives  no  name,  he  calls  him  sim- 
ply llie  King  of  Nineveh,  as  is  customary  in  such  stories,  for  it  adds 
nothing  to  the  tale.  The  king  also  believes  at  once,  lie  rose  from 
Iiis  throne  and  put  off  his  (royal)  mantle  and  covered  himself  with 
sackcloth  and  sat  in  ashes,  a  sign  of  humiliation  and  grief,  cf.  Jb.  2*. 
Even  the  king  himself!  Mark  the  profound  impression! — 7,  8. 
Not  satisfied  with  setting  a  personal  example,  the  king  sends  out 
an  edict  and  has  it  proclaimed  all  over  Nineveh.  Cf.  Dn.  3'*,  where 
the  herald  is  mentioned  who  proclaims  the  decree.  Official  edicts 
appear  too  frequendy  after  the  people  have  already  done  or  begun 
to  do  what  is  ordered  in  them,  to  permit  us  to  overemphasise  this 
point  and  regard  these  verses  as  secondary  on  that  account.  The 
introduction  of  the  edict.  By  decree  of  the  king  and  of  his  nobles, 
is  either  a  mere  official  formula  or  (though  the  author  in  his  char- 
acteristic brevity  says  nothing  about  it)  it  presupposes  a  hasty  con- 
ference of  the  royal  council.  The  decree  commands  that  every- 
body in  Nineveh,  including  the  domestic  animals,  shall  observe  a 
strict  fast,  put  on  sackcloth,  earnestly  pray  to  God  with  all  might 
and  abandon  his  sins.  The  edict  impresses  some  commentators 
as  somewhat  humorous.  To  the  narrator  it  was  intensely  serious, 
cf.  Judith  4*'^\  Even  if  he  were  humorous  in  other  places,  here 
he  would  defeat  his  own  end  by  a  humorous  touch.  The  humour 
is  due  to  a  copyist.     The  domestic  animals  are  to  join  in  the  gen- 


3'-4'  55 

eral  abasement  and  so  are  to  be  deprived  of  food  and  drink. 
Though  the  parallel  in  Judith  4*°  shows  that  the  custom  which 
Herodotus  (9"'')  reports  of  the  Persians  when  the  animals  partici- 
pated in  the  ceremonies  of  mourning  for  Masistius,  was  also  Jew- 
ish, it  is  apparent  that  a  copyist  repeated  somewhat  carelessly  and 
animals  from  v.  '  after  men  in  v.  ^,  so  that  the  text  now  says  that 
the  animals  were  not  only  to  be  clothed  in  sackcloth  but  should 
also  cry  to  Yahweh  and  repent  of  their  evil  ways.  This  was  evi- 
dently not  intended  by  the  original  author.  The  outward  signs 
of  penitence  are  to  be  matched  by  true  repentance  and  reformation. 
The  prayer  is  not  to  be  perfunctory  but  intense,  the  conversion 
sincere,  the  abandonment  of  sin  genuine.  A  high  spiritual  and 
moral  conception  underlies  this  edict.  Cf.  Is.  58^'^.  The  sins  of 
the  Ninevites  are  moral  and  social ;  of  idolatry  the  author  does  not 
speak.  Their  evil  way  is  general.  The  violence  that  is  in  their 
hands  refers  to  the  social  oppression  practised  by  them,  cf.  Am. 
3*",  rather  than  to  Nineveh's  cruelty  to  other  nations. — 9.  The 
hope,  not  the  certainty,  that  God  may  perhaps  pardon  them  is 
expressed  in  the  humble  words,  who  knows,  God  may  once  more 
have  pity  (or  may  turn  and  repent)  and  turn  away  from  His  hot 
anger,  that  we  do  not  perish.  Cf.  Jo.  2**.  With  v.  ^^  cf.  Ex.  32^-^. 
It  is  recognised  that  their  penitence  does  not  put. God  under  any 
obligation  to  spare  them. — 10.  Their  hope  was  not  disappointed. 
And  God  saw  what  they  were  doing,  lit.  their  deeds.  With  Him 
deeds  count,  not  words.  That  they  had  turned  from  their  evil  way 
and  had  therefore  genuinely  repented.  The  narrator  emphasises 
this.  So  God  relented  of  the  evil  which  He  said  He  would  do  to 
them  and  decided  not  to  do  it  (lit.  did  it  not).  Cf.  Am.  f-  ^  Ex.  32". 
The  divine  mercy  was  quickly  aroused  and  the  pardon  of  such 
sincerely  penitent  sinners  speedily  determined  upon.  The  verse 
does  not  create  the  impression  that  Yahweh  waited  until  the  time 
of  grace  was  ended  to  make  up  His  mind  not  to  punish  them,  but 
rather  that  He  decided  to  spare  them  as  soon  as  He  saw  their  whole- 
hearted penitence. 

5.  Siev.  regards  OTiSNa  as  a  theological  gloss.  3  Y'!:i'iiT\  believe  in,  in 
the  sense  of  believing  that  the  word  spoken  was  true,  not  in  the  sense  of 
believing  henceforth  in  Yahweh  as  the  only  God.     ul  correctly  x'^,^'!?? 


56  JONAH 

';•:.  For  a:ap  i;i  oSnjD  cf.  Ges.  ^ '"«.  Hpt.,  JBL.,  XXVI  (1907),  p.  16, 
following  a  suggestion  made  but  not  adopted  by  GASm.,  proposes  to 
insert  3^  after  3^  but  oix  iNnpM  in  v.  ^  after  the  royal  edict  is  opposed  to 
this. — 6.  Siev.  inserts  l^cn  after  apM  mtr.  cs.  &  thinks  of  the  royal 
crown  instead  of  the  robe.  Kleinert  thinks  that  vv.  ^  ^  are  only  a  fuller 
recital  of  the  brief  statement  of  v. '  and  renders  therefore  the  vbs.  in 
vv. «  "•  by  plupfs. — 7.  ir;.SM  pin'>  (611  ^  take  it  as  indirect  constr.  D>*0 
an  Aramaism,  only  here  in  the  Heb.  OT.  in  sense  of  decision,  decree,  but 
often  in  the  Aram,  sections  of  Ezra  and  Daniel.  Cf.  Assy.-Bab.  temu, 
command.  Siev.  would  omit  either  -\sx''i  and  icnS  or  jNsni  ipan.  eyas 
to  icxS  belongs  to  the  edict,  whose  intro.  formula  it  is.  Du.  regards 
nirj3  also  as  part  of  the  edict,  Gegeben  zu  Ninive.  Gr.  puts  1S>'B^  '^k 
nmxs  after  rnxn.  But  this  is  not  necessary.  It  is  true,  aya  is  used 
only  with  human  beings,  never  with  animals;  nj;i  is  used  with  animals. 
For  that  reason  v;^^  *?«  is  added.  A  certain  awkwardness  both  in  v. ' 
and  V.  8  must  be  recognised,  but  this  may  be  removed  by  omitting  Tizr\2'\ 
in  V.  8.  Bohme  omits  i>'">''  ''!<.  Ries.  omits  i.-iB"  Vn  D'SI  i>n>  Sn.  <& 
reads  a>'D  (irapd.)  for  ayar. — 8.  ncnani  oixn  is  omitted  by  Bohme, 
We.,  Kau.,  Now.,  van  H.  But  the  difficulty  is  not  solved  thus,  for 
these  words  would  hold  over  as  subject  from  the  preceding.  Omit  only 
nnnani.  Siev.  omits  v.  ^^  as  an  addition  intended  to  heighten  the  relig- 
ious impression.  His  main  reason  however  is  metr.  <6  C  wrongly  read 
the  impfs.  with  waw  consec. — 9.  Bu.  omits  with  (6  ffi  ^  31-". — 10.  Siev. 
omits  riy^n  D3"nD  i3r  ^3,  cf.  v.  ">,  mtr.  cs.,  and  because  he  thinks  their 
penitence  is  purely  external.  Ws  transl.  is  due  to  dogmatic  scruples. 
— From  V. '  on  B''nSN  is  used  for  nin',  again  in  4'-  «•  ».  &  has  a  free 
transl.  for  'n3T  irs,  corresponding  to  v. '. 


JONAH'S    DISPLEASURE  (4*-^). 

Jonah,  much  vexed  at  the  sparing  of  Nineveh,  remonstrates  with 
Yahweh.  Had  he  not  anticipated  just  this,  when  he  was  still 
at  home?  And  had  he  not  fled  when  the  divine  summons  came  to 
him  the  first  time,  simply  in  order  to  prevent  just  this  ?  Did  he  not 
know  that  Nineveh  was  to  be  spared  after  all  ?  Ah,  if  he  were  only 
dead/  Quietly  Yahweh  asks  Jtim  whetJier  he  thinks  that  his  anger 
is  justified,  but  he  makes  no  reply.  He  leaves  the  city  and  sits  down 
in  sullen  silence  to  the  east  of  it. 

1.  Jonah  recognises  that  Yahweh  has  forgiven  Nineveh  and  that 
He  will  not  destroy  it.  He  needed  no  special  divine  revelation  for 
this,  for  it  was  in  accord  with  Yahweh's  character  and  prophetic 


4'"'  57 

doctrine.  Nor  did  he  need  to  wait  till  the  time  of  grace  was  over 
to  know  Yahweh's  change  of  attitude.  He  knew  it  as  soon  as  he 
saw  the  repentance  of  the  people.  But  instead  of  rejoicing  over 
Yahweh's  kindness,  he  was  displeased  exceedingly  and  very  angry. 
— 2.  That  was  exactly  what  he  had  feared  when  he  was  still  at 
home.  It  was  for  this  reason,  he  tells  Yahweh,  in  an  indignant 
prayer,  that  he  had  fled  when  the  divine  command  came  to  him 
the  first  time.  He  knew  Yahweh's  wonderful  grace,  His  patience 
and  readiness  to  relent,  too  well,  not  to  foresee  that  He  would  for- 
give the  Ninevites  if  they  repented.  And  he  had  no  desire  to  be 
the  messenger  who  was  to  warn  them  of  the  doom  to  come  and 
thus  be  the  means  of  saving  them.  He  hoped  and  wished  that 
Nineveh  go  down  to  its  doom  unwarned.  His  remonstrance  is  put 
by  the  author  in  the  form  of  a  prayer  in  order  to  mitigate  its  bitter- 
ness.— "It  is  noteworthy,"  says  Wellhausen,  "that  the  unfulfilled 
prophecy  does  not  awaken  in  Jonah  any  doubt  whatever,  whether 
he  was  really  sent  by  God."  But  this  is  not  surprising,  for  he 
knew  that  in  uttering  the  prediction  he  was  warning  the  Ninevites, 
and  he  says  himself  that  he  knew  it  would  not  be  fulfilled,  if  they 
repented.  For  Yahweh  was  a  God  gracious  and  compassionate, 
full  of  patience  and  of  great  kindness,  and  relenting  of  the  evil  which 
He  had  threatened, — ^if  men  would  but  turn  from  their  sins  in  true 
penitence.  That  this  condition  is  implied  is  plain  from  the  entire 
prophetic  teaching  of  the  OT.  Jonah  was  not  angry  because  his 
own  personal  prestige  would  be  lost  by  the  non-occurrence  of  the 
doom  which  he  had  announced,  but  because  Nineveh  had  been 
spared  and  because  he  himself  had  brought  this  about  by  his 
warning.  That  is  the  tantalising  part  of  it,  which  drives  him  to 
despair. — 3.  And  so  he  wishes  he  were  dead  and  prays  Yahweh 
to  take  his  life  from  him.  Of  what  use  is  life  for  him  now,  it 
were  far  better  if  he  were  dead.  One  is  reminded  of  the  similar 
scene  in  i  K.  19*  where  Elijah,  thwarted  in  his  desire,  also  begs  to 
die.  The  reason  is  not  ofifended  prophetic  vanity  in  Elijah  either. 
— 4.  Jonah's  anger  is  most  unreasonable,  but  of  course  he  does 
not  see  it.  The  author  wants  to  lay  stress  on  this,  so  Yahweh  says 
to  the  prophet,  Dost  thou  think  thou  art  justified  in  being  so  angry? 
This  involves  a  reproof.     But  Yahweh  is  dealing  gently  with  him. 


58  JONAH 

He  is  in  no  haste  to  insist  on  swift  repentance,  but  wants  to  develop 
in  Jonah  the  thought  of  the  impropriety  of  his  anger.  Strangely 
enough  no  answer  to  Yahweh's  question  is  recorded.  If  it  has 
not  been  omitted  accidentally,  we  must  understand  that  Jonah 
did  not  answer.  Did  he  return  a  sullen  silence  to  Yahweh's  ques- 
tion? But  V.  ^  is  perhaps  not  original  here  (Bu.,  Marti)  or  we 
must  perhaps  supply  the  answer  from  v.  ®,  /  am  rightly  angry  unto 
death  (Du.). — 5.  The  recognition  that  Nineveh  would  be  spared 
had  come  to  Jonah  while  in  the  city,  as  he  witnessed  the  effect  of 
his  preaching  in  the  sincere  repentance  of  the  people.  He  had 
traversed  it  from  west  to  east.  Three  days  it  had  taken.  And 
now  he  leaves  it  and  sits  down  on  the  cast  of  it  in  angry  disappoint- 
ment and  dismay.  It  is  a  situation  true  to  life.  Jonah  had  gone 
all  through  the  city,  he  had  finished  his  commission,  he  knows  its 
result  and  now  he  sits  down  to  rest  in  his  dejected  mood.  An  an- 
cient reader  wondered  why  he  should  stay  there,  and  so  put  in  the 
explanatory  statement  until  he  might  see  what  would  happen  to  the 
city.  But  Jonah  knew  this  already,  and  the  author  of  the  story 
could  hardly  put  this  in,  for  he  gives  no  hint  that  Jonah  had  any 
hope  whatever  that  Yahweh  would  destroy  the  city  after  all,  and 
thus  there  would  be  no  reason  for  him  to  make  such  a  statement. 
We  saw  in  connection  with  3'*  that  the  original  text  read,  in  yet 
three  days  Nineveh  will  be  destroyed!  The  three  days  had  been 
changed  to  forty.  The  glossator  read  forty  in  his  text  and  he  con- 
cluded that  if  Jonah  had  to  stay  so  long  he  would  need  a  hut  as  a 
protection  from  the  hot  sun.  So  he  inserted,  and  he  made  Jiimself 
a  hut  and  set  down  under  it  in  the  shade.  This  was  a  natural  re- 
flection and  yet  unwittingly  he  spoiled  by  it  the  point  of  the  follow- 
ing, for  if  Jonah  could  sit  in  the  shade  of  the  hut,  the  shade  of  the 
plant  was  not  so  necessary  as  v.  "  assumes.  According  to  v.  ^  Jo- 
nah had  no  other  shelter  from  the  rays  of  the  sun  than  the  plant. 
This  difficulty  cannot  be  evaded  by  pointing  to  the  refreshing  shade 
of  the  green  leaves  of  the  tree  and  to  the  unsatisfactory  shelter  of 
the  hut.  If  the  true  character  of  v.  ^''  as  an  explanatory  gloss  is 
recognised,  the  difficulties  connected  with  this  verse  disappear. 
According  to  the  original  story  Jonah  needed  neither  to  wait  until 
he  would  see  what  would  happen  to  the  city,  for  he  knew  it  already, 


4«-'»  59 

nor  to  make  a  hut,  for  the  time  allowed  was  not  long  enough.  The 
author  lets  Jonah  stay  there  not  because  Jonah  was  uncertain 
about  the  result  of  the  repentance  of  Nineveh  but  in  order  to 
teach  him  the  great  lesson  he  so  much  needed  to  learn. 

1.  n'^nj  nyi  njr-'^x  y-iM  adverbial  ace,  see  Ges.  ^""i,  same  constr. 
■with  J?"'^  in  Ne.  2'". — 2.  Siev.  omits  nin»  Sn  SSDn-ii  as  a  gloss  intended 
to  soften  the  effect  of  Jonah's  ill-temper.  njN  cj.  i'^  nai  nt-NSn  idi- 
omatic for  our  did  I  not  say  so?  or  did  I  not  know  it?  ^nvn  n;j  =  mya 
^nvn.  ^~iD"»N  Sy  upon  my  own  ground,  in  my  own  country,  at  home. — 
For  maS  <pmp  two  translations  are  possible,  (i)  /  sought  to  prevent,  or 
forestall  {it)  by  fleeing;  (2)  I  fled  before.  The  second  takes  ^imp  ad- 
verbially, just  as,  c.  g.,  air,  tic  are  used,  Ges.  ^i'*""- '"a.  The  first 
seems  to  me  preferable.  Siev.  omits  here  as  in  i'  na^enn,  also  the  whole 
of  V.  ^^  as  an  insertion  =  Jo.  2"  Ex.  34'.  His  main  reason  is  metr. — 
3.  Siev.  omits  nini  mtr.  cs.  <S  SI  insert  "inN  before  nin\  ($  H  omit 
Sn. — 4.  (S  inserts  irphs  '\wvav,  51  ad  lonam.  For  "iS  mn  3"L3''nn  two 
translations  are  possible,  (i)  dost  thou  well  to  be  angry,  dost  thou 
think  thou  art  justly  angry,  or  (2)  art  thou  very  angry?  The  first  is  to 
be  preferred  as  suiting  the  context  better.  In  v.  '  indeed  the  answer 
which  Jonah  gives  to  the  question  yes,  unto  death  might  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  the  author  had  the  degree  of  anger  in  mind.  But  even  in  v.  ' 
the  transl.,  yes,  I  am  rightly  angry  unto  death,  is  better  fitting  in  view  of 
the  foil,  speech  of  Yahweh. — 5.  The  difficulties  of  v.  *  cannot  be  evaded 
by  translating  the  vbs.  as  plupfs.,  for  that  would  have  been  expressed 
by  a  circumstantial  clause,  as  in  i^.  Wkl.'s  ingenious  transposition  of 
45  after  3^  is  accepted  by  Marti,  Hpt.,  and  for  4^^  by  Kau.,  but  it  is  not 
easily  accounted  for.  Kohler,  Kau.,  et  al.,  omit  the  reference  to  the 
hut.  In  spite  of  Now.'s  protest  it  continues  to  be  said,  on  We.'s  au- 
thority, that  C&  omits  "^xa  or  that  it  is  not  well  supported  by  (§,  when 
(gBAvSQ  have  it.  We.  does  not  omit  it,  others  do.  Marti  thinks,  if 
orig.,  it  would  have  to  be  n^sa,  but  this  is  not  necessary  because  of  the 
immediately  preceding  n\nnn. 

YAHWEH'S   REBUKE   OF   JONAH   (4«-»). 

Yahweh  undertakes  lo  cure  Jonah  of  his  refractoriness  by  an 
object  lesson  and  so  causes  a  ricinus  tree  to  spring  up  very  rapidly 
in  order  to  provide  shade  for  Jonah,  who  is  much  delighted  over  it. 
But  his  joy  was  doomed  to  be  brief.  For  Yahweh  orders  a  worm  to 
attack  and  kill  the  tree  on  the  next  morning.  At  dawn  the  tree  had 
already  withered  away.     When  now  by  God's  special  ordering  a 


6o  JONAH 

sirocco  springs  up  at  sunrise  and  later  the  sun  beats  down  on  Jonah's 
head,  which  is  no  longer  protected  by  the  shade  of  the  tree,  he  is  so 
full  of  physical  and  mental  misery  that  he  wishes  again  to  die,  and 
passionately  asserts  in  response  to  Yahweh's  question  that  he  is  quite 
justified  in  being  so  exceedingly  angry  over  the  death  of  the  tree. 

6.  Jonah  is  to  be  shown  the  unreasonableness  of  his  own  atti- 
tude and  the  justice  of  Yahweh's  by  an  object  lesson.  Yahweh 
orders  a  plant  with  large  leaves  to  grow  up  rapidly  and  high  enough 
above  Jonah  to  be  a  shade  over  his  head  in  order  to  deliver  him  from 
his  vexation.  The  plant,  called  in  Heb.  ktkdyOn,  was  most  prob- 
ably the  ricinus  or  castor-oil  tree  (AVm.  palm-christ,  RVm.  Palma 
Christi)  which  has  large  leaves  supplying  welcome  shade,  and 
whose  growth  is  rapid.  Of  course,  its  growth  is  here  miraculously 
accelerated,  for  it  springs  up  and  grows  during  a  single  night  {cf. 
V.  ")  to  such  height  that  it  shades  Jonah's  head  all  through  the 
next  day.  Jonah  rejoiced  exceedingly  over  the  ricinus  tree,  esp. 
over  its  shade,  but  also  over  the  tree  itself  which  grew  so  rapidly. 
Vv.  ^*'-  "  indicate  that  he  showed  not  merely  selfish  joy  but  real 
interest  in  it.  And  thus  by  turning  his  attention  away  from  the 
city  to  this  miraculous  plant  Yahweh  freed  Jonah  from  his  bad 
humour  and  filled  his  heart  with  delight.  The  author  pictures  here, 
psychologically  correctly,  how  such  a  little  thing  can  reconcile  Jo- 
nah and  then  also  how  quickly  he  despairs  again  when  the  shade 
of  the  plant  is  taken  away.  One  is  again  reminded  of  the  scene 
of  Elijah  under  the  juniper  tree,  in  spite  of  the  difference  of  the 
two  stories. — 7.  Jonah's  joy  was  but  brief.  On  the  following 
morning,  quite  early,  when  dawn  began  to  break,  Yahweh  ordered 
a  worm  to  attack  and  kill  the  tree.  Soon  it  had  withered  away. 
It  has  often  been  noted  that  the  ricinus  tree  withers  very  quickly. 
— 8.  When  now  the  sun  rose,  Yahweh  ordered  a  scorching  east 
wind,  the  much-dreaded  sirocco  with  its  oppressive  and  exhausting 
heat  and  dust.  The  east  wind  is  introduced  not  for  the  purpose 
of  drying  up  the  plant  (Bu.),  or  of  tearing  down  the  hut  (Wkl.),  but 
of  intensifying  the  physical  and  mental  distress  of  the  prophet.  It 
aggravates  the  discomfort  of  a  hot  summer-day  manifold  as  every 
one  who  has  experienced  it  can  testify.  And  so  it  did  with  Jonah. 
When  the  hot  sun  beat  fiercely  on  his  head,  he  missed  the  protec- 


4"-  '"  6i 

tion  of  the  shady  ricinus  leaves,  and  (we  may  supply  from  v.  ") 
was  sorry  over  its  sudden  decay.  Exhausted  and  enervated  by 
the  terrible  heat,  he  became  fretful  and  irritable  and  again  washed 
to  die,  cf.  V.  ^  and  i  K.  19*. — 9.  Cf.  v.  *.  Then  Yahweh  asks  him 
whether  he  thinks  that  his  anger  is  really  justified.  But  this  time 
the  reason  for  his  anger  is  different.  In  v.  *  he  was  angry  because 
Nineveh  was  not  destroyed,  here  he  is  very  angry  because  the  tree 
is  destroyed.  This  inconsistency  is  vividly  brought  out  when  Yah- 
weh asks  him.  Art  thou  justly  angry  on  account  of  the  ricinus  tree? 
The  destruction  of  a  whole  city  with  thousands  of  people  he  de- 
sired, and  when  it  did  not  come  about  he  was  angry,  but  when  the 
worthless  plant  is  destroyed  he  is  angry  and  sorry,  and  answers 
with  great  vehemence  yes,  even  unto  death,  expressing  the  great 
excess  of  his  anger. 

6.  On  the  use  cnSx  mn-'  see  pp.  64/.  It  is  not  due  to  Gn.  2*  ^-  but 
represents  a  conflated  text.  EtymologicaUy  ii'i^'i?  appears  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  Egyptian  Kiki  =  ricinus  (Talmudic  P'<P),  the  Kp&rwv 
of  the  Greeks  (Herod.,  2*2  Pliny,  15').  The  Assy,  kukdnitu  has  not 
been  definitely  identified.  It  was  a  kind  of  garden  plant.  The  identi- 
fication of  kikdyOn  with  the  botlle  gourd  by  ^  ^  E  has  no  philological 
justification  and  seems  to  have  been  guessed  by  (S  as  being  the  most 
probable  plant  in  connection  with  a  hut.  And  this  is  true.  "Speak- 
ing of  Mosul,  Kazwlni  describes  the  custom  of  making  tents  of  reeds 
(on  the  shores  of  the  Tigris),  in  which  the  inhabitants  pass  the  summer 
nights,  when  the  water  is  becoming  low.  As  soon  as  the  earth  where 
the  tents  are,  has  become  dry  enough,  they  sow  gourds,  which  quickly 
spring  up  and  climb  round  the  tents"  (G.  Jacob,  AUarabische  Parallelen, 
pp.  17/.).  But  we  saw  that  the  hut  is  not  an  orig.  part  of  the  text.  And 
the  identification  has  thus  no  more  foundation  than  that  with  i\-y  (S  B). 
— iS  V''iTiS  is  an  old  error  already  in  the  Heb.  text  of  (&  {tov  ffKid^uv 
ain^  =  iS  ^yff),  due  to  dittog.  for  i^^'sn'^.  Bohme,  We.,  el  al.,  omit 
in>'-\D  h  '7''snS  as  a  doublet  of  r^i'xi  Sy  '^s  nvn'?,  Wkl.  prefers  to  omit  the 
latter  because  he  believes  the  hut  gave  Jonah  shade,  and  that  he  needed 
diversion.  Now.-  marks  in  his  transl.  both  clauses  as  secondary,  but 
Now.'^  only  "?^xnS.  As  an  alternative  Now."^  suggests  "h  Sv^';'  vsithout 
in;"nr;.  But  then  the  doublet  character  appears  at  once  and  one  of  the 
two  clauses  must  be  omitted.  If  we  are  right  in  omitting  v.  s''  as  sec- 
ondary, both  clauses  are  orig.  and  there  is  no  need  of  deleting  either. 
— 7.  Siev.  reads  d^h'^n  ni-f,  so  also  &,  but  cf.  pp.  64/.  nn-j'n  ^^'^••z  (g 
freely  ewdiv^  as  in  Am.  7'. — 8.  Siev.  reads  here  again  d^hSn  nin'  mtr.  cs. 
§  also.     The  exact  meaning  of  ."^:;"->n  is  disputed.     CS  ffi  #  translate 


62  JONAH 

it  burning,  scorching;  S  ^'|'^^'?u'  quiet  =  sultry,  sweltering.  Hi.  thought 
that  it  was  derived  from  unn,  to  plough,  and  defined  it  as  an  autumnal 
east  wind.  SS.  took  it  from  cnn,  to  cut  =  a  cutting  east  wind.  Kohler 
connected  it  with  D-^n,  sun,  and  compared  it  with  U'-^n,  dried  clay,  while 
We.  does  not  attempt  an  explanation.  Not  satisfied  with  these  trans- 
lations and  derivations,  Stei.  emends,  reading  P''D''-in,  as  if  from  D->n, 
sun  {cf.  Kohler)  =  hot,  glowing.  Gr.  proposed  n^rnn,  c/".  Dt.  28";  Bohme, 
Hal.  nnnn  from  "yyn,  to  glow.  Che.  proposes  ina'a  in  the  morning,  but 
this  had  been  expressed  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse.  Perhaps  I  may 
venture  to  suggest  n3"^n:;,  scorching,  c  was  omitted  by  haplog.  and  3  was 
mistaken  for  u',  which  in  the  older  form  of  writing  was  quite  easy.  <& 
may  still  have  read  rp^n":.  Vol.  thinks  (S  read  37'n  or  a^inr,  ^^1  cf. 
Is.  49'"  Ps.  12 1«.  pyr:^  irsj-ns  ^^••'^t,  lit.  and  he  begged  his  soid  that  it 
might  die,  i.  e.,  wished  for  himself  that  he  might  die.  Marti  thinks  it  was 
an  old  phrase  originally  meaning  to  curse  oneself,  cf.  Jb.  31'"  '"i^x?  Snu"7 
Vii'pi.  (&  transl.  freely  a.ire\iyiTo  ttiv  \pvxyiv  avTov.  Vol.  compares  for 
this  Plutarch,  Moral.,  p.  1060  D:  ctTroX.  rhv  ^lov.  §  inserts,  and  it  dried 
up  the  gourd,  at  the  end.  Wkl.  also  feels  that  the  purpose  of  the  wind 
should  be  expressed  and  so  suggests  that  there  stood  originally,  and 
it  tore  down  the  hul.  But  nothing  is  said  in  the  foil,  about  the  collapse 
of  the  hut  and  Jonah's  anger  over  it,  only  the  ricinus  is  mentioned. 
It  would  also  have  weakened  Yahweh's  argument,  for  Jonah  had  la- 
boured for  the  hut.  Now.*^  suggests  the  transposition  of  v. '  before  v. ', 
but  not  only  is  nothing  gained  by  this  but  the  situation  is  better  in  the 
traditional  order.  V. '  presupposes  v. '  immediately  before.  ^  in- 
troduces instead  of  "hd  ^niD  avj  the  words  of  Elijah  from  i  K.  iq',  of 
which  one  is  indeed  involuntarily  reminded  in  this  connection,  Thou 
canst  take  my  life  from  me,  O  Lord,  for  I  am  not  better  than  my  fathers. 


APPLICATION  OF  THE   OBJECT  LESSON   (4'"-  "). 

YaJiweh  draws  the  unanswerable  lesson  for  Jonah.  If  Jonah 
has  taken  siicli  a  deep  interest  in  a  wild,  ephemeral  plant,  which 
had  cost  him  no  labour  or  thought,  and  thinks  liimself  justified  in 
it,  how  much  more  is  Yahweh  justified  in  taking  a  deep  and  com- 
passionate interest  in  the  great  city  of  Nineveli  with  its  thousands  of 
inhabitants  and  tens  of  tJiousatids  of  innocent  children  and  animals! 

10.  Jonah's  violence  forms  a  beautiful  background  to  Yahweh's 
wonderful  interpretation  and  application  of  the  object  lesson,  by 
which  He  shows  to  Jonah  the  inconsistency  of  his  position.  The 
petty  narrowness  and  blind  prejudice  of  Jonah  set  off  God's  pa- 


4"-  "  63 

tience  and  mercy  and  love  for  all  mankind  most  effectively.  Yah- 
weh  compares  Jonah's  attitude  toward  the  ricinus  with  His  own 
attitude  toward  Nineveh.  Thou  wast  full  of  pity  on  account  of 
the  ricinus  because  it  perished  so  soon.  And  yet  it  was  only  a  wild 
plant,  it  did  not  belong  to  thee.  Thou  couldst  not  possibly  have 
for  it  the  interest  and  the  attachment  of  one  who  had  planted  and 
tended  it,  for  thou  hadst  done  nothing  at  all  for  it.  Besides,  it 
was  but  ephemeral,  it  grew  up  in  a  night  and  perished  in  a  night 
(Heb.  son  of  a  night),  it  was  therefore  not  of  much  value  nor 
could  thy  attachment  to  it  be  so  very  deep  because  it  lived  such 
a  short  time.  And  yet  thou  didst  pity  it  when  it  died! — 11.  And 
I  should  not  have  pity  on  Nineveh,  that  great  city?  Will  Jonah 
deny  this  same  natural  affection  to  Yahweh?  Nineveh  is  of  far 
more  importance  and  value  than  a  wild  ephemeral  plant !  Yahweh 
had  laboured  for  it,  for  He,  the  only  God,  was  the  creator  of  all  the 
inhabitants  as  well  as  of  the  animals,  and  He  had  made  the  city 
grow  to  such  wonderful  greatness.  All  this  is  implied  in  the  con- 
trast to  V.  ^''.  In  His  righteousness  Yahweh  had  intended  to  pun- 
ish it  for  its  wickedness,  the  complaint  over  which  had  come  up 
to  His  heavenly  throne,  for  He  ever  punishes  sin  where  He  finds 
it,  in  Israel  or  elsewhere,  as  His  prophets  had  proclaimed  long  ago, 
cf.  Am.  1,2.  And  so  He  had  sent  a  prophet  to  them  to  warn  them 
of  the  wrath  to  come,  and  they  had  sincerely  repented.  And  long 
ago  He  had  said  through  Jeremiah  (i8^^-).  At  what  instant  I  shall 
speak  concerning  a  nation  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up 
and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy  it;  if  that  nation,  concerning  which 
I  have  spoken,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I 
thought  to  do  unto  them!  What  can  He  do  but  forgive?  There 
were  besides  the  penitent  sinners  in  that  vast  city  120,000  little 
innocent  children  who  were  not  old  enough  to  know  how  to  dis- 
tinguish between  right  and  left,  and  who  could  therefore  not  be 
punished  for  their  sins,  and  also  a  great  number  of  morally  irre- 
sponsible animals  for  which  Yahweh  in  His  mercy  also  cares  {cf. 
Dt.  25*).  Should  I  not  have  pity  on  Nineveh,  that  great  city,  in 
which  there  are  more  than  120,000  human  beings  who  do  not  know 
the  difference  between  right  and  left,  and  (so)  much  cattle?  The 
argument  is  absolutely  irresistible.     There  was  but  one  answer 


64  JONAH 

possible.  But  the  author  wisely  refrains  from  adding  anything 
about  Jonah.  He  wants  to  let  the  question  sink  deep  into  the 
minds  of  his  hearers  and  readers.  He  wants  to  teach  the  narrow, 
blind,  prejudiced,  fanatic  Jews  of  which  Jonah  is  but  the  type 
that  "the  love  of  God  is  wider  than  the  measures  of  man's  mind, 
And  the  heart  of  the  Eternal  is  most  wonderfully  kind:  But  we 
make  His  love  too  narrow  by  false  limits  of  our  own."  It  em- 
braces all  men,  not  only  Israel,  even  Israel's  enemies!  For  all 
men  are  God's  creatures.  He  is  the  God  of  all  and  just  as  full 
of  love  and  care  for  heathen  as  for  the  Jews  and  just  as  ready  to 
pardon  them,  if  they  abandon  their  sins  and  resort  to  Him.  Should 
we  not  share  His  love  and  His  purposes? 

10.  J3:^=  =  }3  ns'N,  cf.  I'.  The  phrase  n'?'''7-j3  son  of  a  nighl  is  idiomatic, 
it  had  grown  in  one  night  and  in  another  night  it  perished,  cf.  Ges. 
^ "«''.  Similarly  son  of  a  year  =  one  year  old.  On  the  form  ja  cf. 
Ges.  ^  5*.  Following  Bohme,  Ries.  omits  'rh-h  p;:*.  He  thinks  it  was 
inserted  by  a  reader  who  misunderstood  v. «,  which  should  be  trans- 
lated by  plupf.,  Yahweh  had  ordered  the  ricinus.  Jonah  found  it 
when  he  went  out  there  and  sat  down  in  its  shade.  Ries.  gets  thus  rid 
of  the  miracle.  Similarly  already  Michaelis. — 11.  Dins  nS  <jni  is  an  in- 
terrogative sentence,  cf.  Ges.  'i  '*»",  indicated  as  such  only  by  the  tone. — 
\JU-  BTiir'c  without  reduplication  c/".  Ges.  ^='"".  Schmidt,  Siev.  suspect  ncnji 
^  ^*"  n3->  as  secondary,  but  it  is  safeguarded  by  3'  '•.  For  ^i~v^  C5  £  read 
wTongly  n'^r\  From  the  number  of  little  children,  120,000,  a  total 
population  of  about  600,000  has  been  estimated.  That  Nineveh 
proper  could  never  have  contained  so  many  inhabitants  is  clear.  F. 
Jones  estimated  that  the  population  may  have  been  about  174,000, 
allowing  fifty  square  yards  to  each  person.  If  only  children  under  two 
years  are  meant,  the  total  number  of  inhabitants  would  h  ive  been  over 
a  million. — On  the  genuineness  of  Je.  18'  '•  see  Bewer,  in  Essays  in 
Modern  Theology  and  Related  Subjects  .  .  .  A  Testimonial  to  Charles 
Augustus  Briggs  (1911),  pp.  31/. 

NOTE  ON  THE  USE  OF  mn^  AND  D^n'-s  IN  THE 
BOOK  OF  JONAH. 

In  chs.  1-3  the  divine  name  used  by  the  heathen  is  a^n'^s  or  a-n'^Nn,  by 
the  Hebrew  it  is  rnn\  Only  in  3'"  we  might  perhaps  have  expected 
ni.T,  but  a'nSxn  is  in  line  with  the  preceding.  The  real  difficulty  is  in 
ch.  4,  for  here  nin^  and  o^h'^n  or  a^n^sn  are  used  promiscuously,  with- 
out any  reason  for  the  variation.     E.  g.,  the  same  question  is  introduced 


4- 


THE   USE   OF   THE   DIVINE   NAME  65 

in  V.  *  by  tlt  -icn''i,  in  v. '  by  a^n^s  -\::xm.  Or  the  same  action  is  intro- 
duced in  V. '  by  s^n'^xn  pM,  in  v. »  by  a^nVx  jcm,  in  v.  ^  by  cn'^x  nin>  pM. 
— Now  in  V.  7  (&^*  reads  uv  (=  nin>),  31  dominus;  CgAQ.  js.  39. 49. 62.  los. 
147.233  KOpios  6  ee6s,  (&^  Luc,  Hes.  6  ^e6j.  In  v. »  (g^Q.  26.  iss  Kvpios,  H 
dotninus.  In  v. '  (gsQ.  48. 95.  iss  5  ^e6s,  05  '5'-  "'  Kvptos,  ?C  B  dominus,  ^"^ 
Luc.  Hes.  §>"  /ci/pios  6  deos.  §  reads  all  through  vv.  s-'  3\n'^>x  nin\ 
These  variants  are  significant.  They  show  in  regard  to  the  reading 
a^nVx  niH''  in  4^  that  it  is  a  conflation  pure  and  simple.  Note,  e.  g., 
the  similar  process  in  4'  where  some  Gk.  mss.  have  KOpios,  others 
6  0(6$,  still  others  Kvpios  6  6e6s.  The  process  was  the  same  in  Heb. 
mss.  In  view  of  this,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  view  that  our  author 
is  dependent  on  Gn.  2  for  the  combination  aM':'x  nini  should  still  be 
entertained.  Our  author  did  not  write  that  combination,  he  wrote 
simply  nin>.  A  copyist,  or  reader,  under  the  influence  of  ch.  3  wrote 
avi'r'N  probably  all  through  ch.  4,  but  in  some  instances  the  orig.  read- 
ings reasserted  themselves.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  author 
wrote  nini  all  through  ch.  4,  for  here  there  was  no  reason  for  a^nSs,  as  in 
chs.  I,  3. 


;/ 


Date  Due 


'«. 


3^ 


